Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ATHOLL INVESTMENTS (ABERDEEN DEVELOPMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions —

Mr. Speaker: I appeal for the cooperation of right hon. and hon. Members to make their questions and answers shorter than they have been lately.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Partnership Agreements

Mr. Eyre: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made with the partnership agreements in relation to the inner city areas of Birmingham; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): Substantial progress has been made in establishing partnership machinery and in starting work on an inner area programme. Work is already in hand on an £11 million package of construction works for completion by April 1979, and I have recently announced an allocation of £30 million under the urban programme to Birmingham for the period 1979–80 to 1981–82. At least £1 million of urban programme support will be available next year. I shall chair the first meeting of the Birmingham Partnership on 13th December.

Mr. Eyre: I am sure that the Minister welcomes the energetic co-operation of the Birmingham Council in these matters. Is he aware that the Government's statements about partnership agreements are

misleading when they refer to the sums of money that have been made available? I say that because the money is provided mainly by means of loan sanctions which authorise local authorities to borrow extra sums at a time when the Government are operating cash limits themselves throughout all Government expenditure. Does the Minister realise that consequently extra costs fall upon taxpayers who live in the middle and outer areas of Birmingham and other cities?

Mr. Freeson: There is nothing misleading at all. The situation is the same as it has always been. When a Government announce or authorise capital works programmes, that implies loan raising. There is nothing secret about that. In this context we are arranging considerable grant aid so that a good deal of the burden will be obviated by central Government assistance.

Miss Boothroyd: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the problems of the older industrial towns in the Black Country, whose needs are not dissimilar to those of our major cities but whose claims he has not been able to meet under the increased urban aid programme? Will he give priority and practical help to the metropolitan borough of Sandwell by providing assistance from the £400 million that has been allocated to the construction programme?

Mr. Freeson: The £400 million construction industry package is already the subject of distribution or allocation. There is then the question whether there is any scope to assist local authorities outside the partnership agreements to embark upon inner city or inner city-type programmes. We see the partnership agreements and the programme authority initiatives as the first important steps towards developing policy in this area. We shall bear in mind other areas with similar problems.

Mr. Rooker: Will my right hon. Friend use the partnership agreement with Birmingham to try to persuade the city council to levy rates on empty office blocks instead of giving £1 million a year from the rates to property developers? Will he also liberalise the bureaucratic rules that govern council tenants to enable some of them to paint their front doors a different colour?

Mr. Freeson: The powers for local authorities to rate empty properties already exist. They may use the powers according to local judgment. We are sympathetic towards the problems caused by tenancy agreements. We have been doing a great deal of work in the Department with the management advisory group and we have issued guidance to local authorities on tenant participation and on the relaxation of the bureaucratic rules that exist in a number of areas.

Mr. Heseltine: Does the Minister agree that the most effective way of enabling tenants to participate is to give them the right to buy their own homes?

Mr. Rooker: They already have that right.

Mr. Freeson: As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) is indicating from a seated position, the authority is already there. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will direct his attention to the needs of tenants in tenanted estates. I hope that he will not push too far the policy that he is rather indiscriminately pursuing, which would reduce the supply of rented property.

Mr. Anthony Grant: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made with the partnership agreement in relation to the inner area of London; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Shore): Considerable progress has been made. The partnerships in Docklands and Lambeth, which I announced in April, have been allocated £17 million and £5 million respectively for this year and next. The first formal partnership meetings will be held within the next three weeks. Further provisional allocations have been made of £45 million for Docklands and £15 million for Lambeth under the urban programme for the period 1979–82.
The partnership for Islington and Hackney was announced on 8th November and £5 million has been allocated for immediate expenditure. Preliminary discussions between officials have already taken place and I hope that the first partnership meeting will be held early in the New Year.

Mr. Grant: Will the Secretary of State come clean with the House and admit that all this inner city electoral activity means either that areas meriting special attention, such as Hammersmith, must increase their borrowing, which must be paid for at some time, or that there is an added burden upon the ratepayers and taxpayers of other areas, such as Harrow or Brent?

Mr. Shore: I find the hon. Gentleman's comments extraordinary, because I believe that there is considerable agreement in the House on the recognition of the needs of many of our inner urban areas. I think that the general feeling in the House is that it is time something was done about it. It is no good the hon. Gentleman's dismissing the programme as being electorally attractive. I have no idea whether it is. If it is, it is electorally attractive in areas in which the hon. Gentleman's party has just as much interest as ours does. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the programme increases the borrowing, but, as has already been explained, it is grant-aided roughly to the extent of 75 per cent. if it comes under the urban aid programme or, if it is extra housing, to the extent of 66 per cent. That is widely welcomed by the authorities concerned.

Mr. Lipton: It is all very well to talk about what the Secretary of State has done for Lambeth—I agree that it is not inconsiderable—but will he explain why he has prevented the London borough of Lambeth from using land in Tolworth, near Kingston, on which 1,000 people could be rehoused? The Secretary of State turned down an application that Lambeth made to use its own land in that area.

Mr. Shore: I am afraid that I cannot be led astray in replying to that question, because a formal decision has been made and the reasons were set out in the decision letter.

Mr. Baker: Is the Secretary of State aware that private organisations in London, such as the Clerkenwell Workshops and the Rotherhithe Workshops, are producing more jobs more quickly than are local authorities in London? As these planning agreements have been going ahead for six months now, can he tell us when we shall see the first factory or


workship open, operating and producing jobs?

Mr. Shore: That depends on how quickly the local authorities get on with the job. I have noticed in all my dealings with the partnership authorities that there is a real desire and sense of urgency to get on with the job as quickly as possible.

Housing (Mentally Handicapped Persons)

Mr. Carter-Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he has given to local authorities concerning the creation of a satisfactory housing policy for mentally handicapped people; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Freeson: The Consultative Document on Housing Policy which we issued in June indicates a number of ways in which local housing authorities, housing associations and new towns working with social services departments can help many mentally handicapped people to live reasonably independent lives in the community. I take suitable opportunities to encourage them to help in this way, and will keep under review the need to issue more detailed advice.

Mr. Carter-Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that a substantial number of mentally handicapped youngsters are in hospitals when they ought not to be there? Does he accept that they are technically homeless, and will he look at the Swedish group house experiment for these people?

Mr. Freeson: I shall certainly examine the scheme to which my hon. Friend refers. If he will send me preliminary information I shall examine it. Generally, I accept the principle that he has put forward, namely, that we need to provide more housing of this kind and pay particular attention—I do not think sufficient attention has been paid in the past—to the needs of the chronically sick, within whom I include this particular group of persons. That would enable youngsters and, indeed, other people who would otherwise have to stay in hospital for long stretches at a time to come into their own homes while still under the guidance and care of the hospital services.

Mr. Charles Irving: Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider giving firm instructions to housing associations, which are playing an increasingly important part in the development of housing, that they should include units for the disabled and the mentally handicapped in most of their schemes? Perhaps the Minister would be willing to issue firm instructions to the Housing Corporation.

Mr. Freeson: I do not think that it is a question of having to issue firm instructions. Many housing associations have taken initiatives over recent years and, indeed, earlier in this area. They have been notable initiatives, and I have seen some of them for myself.
If, however, there is a need to expand on this, I shall be glad to consult the Housing Corporation and housing association representatives through the National Federation on such matters.

Mr. Alison: The right hon. Gentleman has talked about the needs of the chronically sick. Do those needs receive specific consideration in the needs formula or the needs element of the rate support grant?

Mr. Freeson: That is an entirely different question, which does not arise under housing expenditure. It is treated only in a very residual respect quite separately for subsidy and grant-aided purposes.

Local Government Expenditure

Mr. Rathbone: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is considering cash limits on local government capital expenditure.

Mr. Shore: The bulk of local authority capital expenditure is already embraced by the cash limit system in one form or another and there is very little scope for extending its coverage.

Mr. Rathbone: While I welcome that reassurance about the lack of scope for extending it, may I point out that there is a worry among some local authorities that the involvement of national Government in capital expenditure projects may become the case more and more, just as it has become the case in housing, where the most detailed plans have to be approved by the Department? Can the Secretary of State reassure the House that such detailed involvement in the approval


of capital expenditure projects will not now become the norm?

Mr. Shore: A distinction has to be drawn between cash limits and the way in which we issue loan sanctions for capital projects. The hon. Gentleman may recall that in the Green Paper produced after Layfield we proposed certain changes in the system of controlling local authority capital expenditure which would in one sense at any rate have the effect of liberalising the present practices.

Housing

Mr. Joseph Dean: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria will be used in apportioning the extra financial resources that will be made available for next year, to local authority house building and improvement programmes, in accordance with the Chancellor's statement of Wednesday 26th October.

Mr. Shore: The extra resources, amounting to £150 million, will be added to the public expenditure provision for housing investment in 1978–79. We are currently considering the criteria on which allocations will be made and are consulting the Housing Consultative Council. I expect allocations to have regard both to an assessment of need as well as to authorities' own proposals for expenditure.

Mr. Dean: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that if the criteria used this year and last year are continued, those authorities that have done well under that system will continue to do so while authorities like Leeds, which is the one that I represent, which did rather badly under the criteria, will still be victimised?

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend certainly has a point. When we introduced controls over new house building last year, we produced in a rather rough and ready way stress areas and non-stress areas. My hon. Friend, of course, represents a constituency in a city which we deemed to be a stress area. But inevitably in allocating these sums we had to take account of what those authorities had been spending in the last two years. Under the new consultations that we are having, we hope to take account not only of past

expenditure but of a more factual basis of actual need.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is the Secretary of State aware that in large parts of the Midlands the greatest need is not new house building but a combination of improvement grants and local authority mortgages for terraced properties? Can he give an assurance that local authorities will have greater discretion to move budgets around if they so desire? Will he also say that he will not prevent the allocation of local authority mortgages for this purpose?

Mr. Shore: Obviously the hon. Gentleman is entirely happy with the development of the Government's housing policy, because we have established precisely three blocks of local authority housing expenditure and we are allowing, as it were, total freedom of manoeuvre within each of those large blocks and some movement from one block to another.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Do not the extra resources amount to only half the cuts made in the past year? Do we not need a far greater increase? Would not a visitor from Mars arriving here think that we were crazy on seeing the desperate housing need, on the one hand, and 250,000 unemployed building workers, on the other?

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend knows that I always welcome his encouragement. I am very much in favour of increasing the totality of the housing programmes. Of course, I am sure that the decision announced a short time ago about the increase of £150 million in money available for capital investment in housing gives my hon. Friend considerable satisfaction, as well as it does me. It would give him even more satisfaction, which I would share, if we were able to improve on that in the future. Perhaps we shall be.

Mr. Heseltine: Will the Secretary of State confirm that when deciding on needs as he sees them he has no intention of limiting the discretion of local authorities to choose within which of the three blocks of apportionment they allocate their revenues and expenditure?

Mr. Shore: There has to be some general discussion and agreement on the blocks across the country—as a whole,


as it were—otherwise there would be no point in having any blocks at all. One would simply make a total allocation. We have gone a considerable way in liberalising the systems introduced in the past and I believe that is widely welcomed by local authorities.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest official figures for house building in the public and private sectors.

Mr. Freeson: In September there were 28,400 starts in Great Britain, of which 13,500 were in the public sector and 14,900 were in the private sector. There were 28,100 completions, 15,600 in the public sector, 12,600 in the private sector.

Mr. Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these appalling figures have arisen because he and his colleagues, especially those in the Cabinet and the Treasury, paid heed to the hysteria from the Tories about cuts in public expenditure as a result of which we today have a lobbying of the House by many thousands of people protesting at the situation? Will he explain more precisely what he intends to do to increase the amount of money available for housing in 1978–79 when this exercise is balanced against the fact that, according to the IMF decision in December last, there is to be a further £300 million cut in housing? Therefore, is there not likely to be a further reduction in expenditure on housing?

Mr. Freeson: Whatever may be the arguments over the action on public expenditure agreed in the IMF settlement, it would be a mistake to comment that the rate of house building by local authorities throughout the country in the months that have ensued has been affected by that. The position now—as I indicated some months ago was likely to be the case—is that, although the Government have provided resources for about 150,000 housing starts in the public sector in 1977, there is clear evidence that a number of local authorities are not taking up the resources already available.
The figures that I have referred to relate to a shortfall on provided expenditure, irrespective of the argument whether or not cuts should have been imposed last year.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Will the £300 million cut imposed by the IMF for this year be restored next year? Should not half of the profits from North Sea oil be devoted to housing and other social expenditure? I should particularly like the Minister to reply to my first question.

Mr. Freeson: I have my own views on the broad strategic questions relating to the future use of profits from North Sea oil and I shall participate in presenting them in Government, but that question would be best directed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
As for the prospects for housing in the coming year, it is already our intention to increase provision by about £150 million in 1978. However, that is not my immediate concern. I am concerned about the failure on the part of a number of local authorities to take up resources that have been provided. I am doing my best—although with difficulty—to reallocate resources that have not been taken up by some authorities to those authorities which are able to use the cash. However, that is a difficult exercise when we are already more than half-way through the year.

Mr. MacKay: Is the Minister aware that there will he a further reduction in the number of houses built in the private sector next year because of the decreasing supply of land that has resulted from the disastrous Community Land Act? Does he realise that those who will suffer most will be the first-time buyers whom the Minister professes to want to help, because costs will go up as a result of supply and demand?

Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman is a little mixed up. Whatever views there may be on the future of land supply—some house builders are concerned about the prospects in three years' time—there is no reason to believe that that will affect house building in 1978. There has recently been a marginal uplift in the number of housing starts in the private sector, and I hope—and I wish to help it—that that will be sustained in 1978.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Is it correct that the underspending of public expenditure allocated for housing in 1976–77 was about £400 million and is likely to be even higher this year? While I appreciate the Minister's proposals to reallocate


money between local authorities, from those which are not pressing forward with schemes towards those which are, could there not be an additional allocation to take account of what was not spent before?

Mr. Freeson: That is a broad issue. In fixing the allocation for the new housing investment programmes for 1978–79, we shall certainly take into account the experiences that we have had with certain local authorities in recent months. However, we cannot consider the underspending of 1976, 1975 or even earlier being made available for allocation during 1978—if that is the point that my hon. Friend was seeking to make.

Mr. Heseltine: Does the Minister recognise that the only good figures that have come out of his Department have been ones that show that local authority and housing association renovations of older homes have increased by 9 per cent.? Does that not show a welcome diversion of resources—mostly by Tory-controlled authorities—towards improving existing houses and away from expensive new building? Does the Minister realise that, although he may tell the House that there has been a slight improvement in the number of housing starts, the House will remember that his Department recently announced that housing starts were 17 per cent. down over the previous 12 months? Does that not amount to a total failure of the Minister's housing policies?

Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman is trawling back over points that I have already dealt with. I said that there had been a decline, but I should point out that a large part of that has been due not to a failure to provide resources on the part of the Government but to a failure by a number of local authorities to take up resources available.
We certainly welcome more rehabilitation of homes. It is part of Government policy to increase the amount of rehabilitation that is carried out by local authorities and housing associations, and we are encouraging that. However, the hon. Gentleman is mistaken if he thinks that that has come about only in this year as a result of the diversion of resources from new building to rehabilitation. That is not the case. It has come about as part of the provision for which we budgeted.

What we are seeing this year is an under-spending of resources, not a switching of resources.

Community Land Act

Mr. Budgen: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the Community Land Act to make a profit.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): We shall probably not get an overall surplus until authorities are disposing of as much land as they are acquiring.

Mr. Budgen: Is it not now clear that there will never be sufficient money to make this legislation work, whatever its merits or demerits? Would it not now be best to attempt to help the hard-pressed construction industry, and especially its 250,000 unemployed workers, by reducing the rate of development land tax so as to encourage private land owners to make voluntary sales of development land?

Mr. Barnett: As I have said on previous occasions, we have little evidence to suggest that there is a shortage of land for development. What we do believe is that the community land scheme must be built upon a secure financial basis, and that is precisely what we are doing. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the first disposals that have taken place have shown a profit.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Will my hon. Friend assure us that the Act will at least prevent land speculators from making huge profits at the expense of the community, as has already happened? Has my hon. Friend seen the recent report that Mr. Horace Cutler, the GLC Tory leader, made £1 million by buying land and selling it to a local authority?

Mr. Barnett: One of the purposes of the Act is to prevent the appalling speculations in land that have taken place in the past, but I remind my hon. Friend that its major purpose is to enable local planning authorities to plan their land for the benefit of the community as a whole.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Will the Minister give us an assurance that he will take note of the recent Civic Trust report that showed that no less an 250,000 acres of urban land are in the ownership of local


authorities and other bodies? Does he agree that if that land were released on to the market now it would do a great deal to help the building of new houses? Will he do something to persuade local authorities to get on and do it?

Mr. Barnett: I welcome the report, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing it to the attention of the House. We shall study it carefully. I share the hon. Gentleman's obvious concern for good land management by local authorities.

Mr. Rossi: Why will not the Minister take up the invitation that we made to him more than a year ago to ask nationalised industries and local authorities to state what unused land they have in public ownership, and if they have no use for it to put it on the market and let somebody else get on with its proper development and use?

Mr. Barnett: Yet again, the hon. Gentleman asks me to find ways of encouraging local authorities to spend money during a time of financial constraint. We believe that it would be wrong to do that at present. That is not to say that I do not share the concern of Opposition Members about the need for good land management by local authorities. Our evidence is that the Act is encouraging just that.

Urban Relief Roads (Planning Inquiries)

Mr. Boscawen: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average length of time currently needed between the date of a public inquiry into urban relief road proposals and the publication of his decision on them.

Mr. Guy Barnett: The time varies according to the complexity of the issues and the weight of objection.

Mr. Boscawen: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that non-reply. Does he not think that the fact that it is now 11 months since there was a public inquiry into the Wells inner relief road is disgraceful? An appalling sense of injustice is felt by those whose homes are blighted, who are having to wait so long and cannot make any plans about their future, about their homes or about their finances. There is a feeling that the officials in the

hon. Gentleman's Department just do not care. Would he care to comment on that?

Mr. Barnett: I shall certainly comment. The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that the inquiry took place at the beginning of this year. We have received the report, which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport and I are considering carefully and urgently. I sympathise with the people who may be affected by the plans, but I must underline the importance of seeing that decisions are right and that all the factors are properly taken into account. The hon. Gentleman's is a case where there has been inevitable delay, but I assure him, as I have already done in correspondence, that we are getting on with the matter as urgently as possible.

Mr. Forman: Is the Minister aware that exactly the same considerations apply to the M23 north of Hooley, which affects my constituency? There has now been a delay of about 10 years in that regard. Will the hon. Gentleman tell his colleagues in the Department of Transport to get on and take a decision which removes property blight from my constituents once and for all?

Mr. Barnett: I shall bring that point to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that inquiries could be speeded up if information required by protesters were available at the beginning of the inquiries?

Mr. Barnett: I shall consider that.

Mr. Boscawen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Housing (Students)

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to encourage the adequate supply of private accommodation for students at universities and polytechnics.

Mr. Freeson: Apart from the provision of on-campus accommodation, a great deal is being done in the public sector to meet the needs of single persons, including students. The housing Green Paper


suggested a number of measures to help those who wish to buy homes; and we shall, in the current review of the Rent Acts, take full account of the rôle of rented housing in meeting students' and other single persons' needs.

Mr. Knox: That was a very disappointing and inadequate reply. When will the Minister take positive steps to encourage a substantial increase in student housing associations, and when will he set up a register of students' accommodation which would be exempt from security of tenure?

Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman's last suggestion has been considered and rejected by the Government after a great deal of discussion. The housing association movement to which the hon. Gentleman referred has trebled the amount of housing it is providing annually during the past three years. A great deal of that housing—not enough yet—is being provided for single people, including young single people, such as students.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a group of students can pay a great deal more for given accommodation than any family seeking that accommodation would be able to pay, and that removal of security of tenure would simply result in the students paying substantially higher rents and their becoming even more attractive to the landlord compared with an ordinary family, thus aggravating the problems for other people in university towns?

Mr. Freeson: My hon Friend has summarised very well the reasons that led us to reject the proposal that the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Knox) put to me.

Mr. Rossi: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in the autumn of 1974 the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), then his Under-Secretary of State, wrote, as Minister, to me giving an undertaking that the Government would introduce legislation to remove student accommodation in the hands of private landlords from the effects of the Rent Acts? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since the breaking of that undertaking countless students have suffered considerable hardship every September, even including this Septem

ber? In view of that, does he not regard his answer as both a breach of faith and terribly complacent?

Mr. Freeson: It was certainly not complacent. We had exchanges on several occasions two or three years ago about the proposal put by the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Knox) and we rejected it for the reasons stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann).
Both before and since the 1974 Rent Act there have been difficulties, to a degree, for students in polytechnics and universities in September of each year. But it is not true that the position is worse. If anything, the evidence that I have—it is only indicative evidence—is that the position is somewhat better now than it has been in the past.

Central Lancashire New Town

Mr. George Rodgers: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied that the provision of employment opportunities in the Central Lancashire New Town is commensurate with the proposed programme of residential development.

Mr. Guy Barnett: The revised target figure for the Central Lancashire New Town which my right hon. Friend announced in July took account of the need to achieve a balance between homes and jobs in the new town. I am satisfied that sufficient employment opportunities will be available in the new town to provide for the increased population.

Mr. Rodgers: I thank the Minister very much for that reply and explanation. Is he aware that there is considerable disquiet in Clayton-le-Woods that accommodation for 4,000 people should be built in this area? Is he satisfied that the new town has the capacity to generate sufficient employment opportunities to meet the situation, and does he intend to hold a public inquiry into these proposals?

Mr. Barnett: I am aware of these proposals and I am informed that the development corporation is consulting people in the area about them. This will go before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as a Section 6(1) application and at that stage he will decide whether there should be a public inquiry. I


can assure my hon. Friend that we shall examine the proposals very closely to see whether the provision of houses is justified in the context of the revised population targets, and will take fully into account the views of the local authorities, public bodies and the general public.
On the employment side, the CLNT unemployment level is around 6 per cent. which, in national terms, is not too bad. The development corporation has been very successful in bringing new jobs to the area, and the Secretary of State for Industry has approved the first stage of the expansion of the British Leyland truck and bus division, which will provide 700 new jobs.

Mr. Thorne: What immediate plans does the Minister have to strengthen community representation on the Central Lancashire New Town Development Corporation, which has made a great impact upon the sort of housing plans it has at the moment?

Mr. Barnett: We are reviewing the board of the Central Lancashire New Town and will be making an announcement in the near future. We are keen to see on the boards members of the local authorities who directly represent the people in these areas, and we think that this should be a requirement in respect of the boards of all third-generation new towns as well as others.

Tenants' Charter

Sir George Young: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for establishing a tenants' charter.

Mr. Freeson: The proposal for a tenants' charter for public sector tenants was set out in the housing policy Green Paper earlier this year. The details of the separate elements in the charter and the arrangements for giving effect to them are the subject of a consultation paper which has recently been issued to the local authority associations and all other interested parties.

Sir G. Young: Can the Minister say whether a tenants' charter will be included in the proposed housing Bill, and, if not, why not?

Mr. Freeson: No, it will not be included. Apart from anything else, the consultation process will stilt be taking place when we introduce such a Bill. The Bill proposed, as stated in the Queen's Speech, relates to particular assistance for first-time buyers and not to tenants' charter matters.

Mr. Stoddart: Is the Minister aware that I welcome very much his intention to bring forward some sort of tenants' charter? Will he give us an assurance that he will ensure that tenants are free from some of the bullying bureaucracies with which they have had to contend in the past? Will he also ensure that the discrepancies between the exchange' arrangements of one town and another are rectified, because some are completely absurd at present?

Mr. Freeson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his recent translation, and welcome his maiden question, for some time anyway. I do not think that we have to await legislation, as indicated in the original Question, before embarking on improvements to tenants' relationships with local authorities and housing associations. We issued guidance and consultation material to local authorities on this matter, following a review by my advisory group in the Department, which I hope will produce results in the intervening period. I do not think that I can tell the House more at this stage about the second point that my hon. Friend raised. However, we are concerned about improving the national transfer and' exchange arrangements operating between local authorities.

Mr. Welsh: Is the Minister considering a tenants' charter which will include the right of the tenant to buy his own council house?

Mr. Freeson: We have made it perfectly clear that we do not favour the indiscriminate sale of council houses. I refer the hon. Member to the policy statement that we made on this matter in the Green Paper.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: Is the Minister aware that the tenants' association in London is deeply concerned about the workings of the housing transfer system which works against certain categories of tenant? Does his Department give any guidelines to local authorities in this respect?

Mr. Freeson: We do not give guidelines singularly in this respect, but this is one issue which is the subject of examination by my advisory group. It is a matter with which I am deeply concerned, along with other aspects of allocation policy. I believe that greater flexibility is needed, and a growing number of local authorities are embarking on initiatives in this field to make the arrangements much more flexible than they were in the past. I am glad of the support of hon. Members in pushing down this road.

Mr. Rossi: Will the Minister say why it is necessary at this stage to consult local authorities on the tenants' charter when this matter has been debated for so long and there is general agreement on both sides of the House about the need for such a charter to protect tenants from the paternalism of local authorities? Will he assure us that he will consult tenants' associations and give a firm undertaking that the charter will include security of tenure for council tenants?

Mr. Freeson: There is tenants' representation on the advisory group to which I have referred. In the last two or three years there have been more moves than ever before in the local authority and housing association fields, as well as in the burgeoning co-operative housing field, to involve tenants in the management and running of their estates and properties. We are consulting because that is the democratic thing to do, and we are concerned that the elected local authorities owning considerable estates are consulted in these matters because they are entitled to such consultation.

Rate Support Grant

Mr. Newton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the rate support grant for Essex in 1978–79; and what replies he has sent.

Mr. MacGregor: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the rate support grant for 1978–79.

Mr. Madel: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the current methods of calculation

that are used in deciding the rate support grant for counties with rapidly expanding populations.

Mr. Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what formula he proposes to adopt for the distribution of the rate support grant for the coming financial year as between shire and metropolitan counties.

Mr. Shore: The rate support grant settlement was announced at the statutory meeting of the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance last Friday, 18th November. The main terms of the settlement were given in my answer to the parliamentary Question by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) on the same date. The full text of my statement is in the Library.
The method used for distribution of the needs element of rate support grant is based on a regression analysis of needs in each local authority area, but any resulting redistribution between authorities is limited by provisions for a four-year damping of the results and by a safety net which restricts any loss of grant arising from the use of the new formula to a particular local authority area to an amount equivalent to a 2p rate. The system takes account of the needs that may arise in a local authority area as a result of expanding population.
In formulating the terms of the settlement, I have taken account of the many representations I have received in the past year from local authorities and Members of Parliament, and I have already informed Essex Members that I would be very happy to meet them now that the terms of the settlement for 1978–79 have been announced.

Mr. Newton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the assurance at the end of that answer. Is he aware that there is considerable confusion about the operation of this so-called safety net, and that Essex calculates that its ratepayers have lost £3 million more than they should have done if the Minister meant what he said on Friday? Will he further acknowledge that, whatever he may say about taking account of the needs of an expanding population, the people in Essex and elsewhere will feel that the Government have wholly forgotten their needs?

Mr. Shore: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the population growth is reflected in the needs formula. Furthermore, if there is any confusion in people's minds on how the safety net will operate, that will be quickly and speedily elucidated when we lay the relevant rate support grant orders. We shall be in touch with the various town halls and county halls concerned.

Mr. MacGregor: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that this continual switching of parts of the rate support grant under the present Government from rural to inner urban areas has put county councils such as Norfolk in an extremely difficult position in the past few years, especially as they have been both trying to maintain services and seeking to protect ratepayers from excessive rate increases, bearing in mind that there are often areas with below-average incomes? Is it not clear that this difficulty will continue next year, owing to the fact that inflation has been underestimated and also the fact that there have been further concessions to London?

Mr. Shore: I believe that it is right—this is not only my belief, but it was that of the Conservative Secretary of State for the Environment in his time—that the distribution of local authority grant should be based on the best possible assessment of need. That is what we have been trying to do. It means that there will be a distribution from authorities which are assessed to have lower needs to those authorities which are assessed to have greater needs. That is bound to happen. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to exaggerate. I am glad to say that there is an increase in the amount of money being given to Norfolk. Many hon. Members have still very much in mind the great difficulty that we experienced last year, with the admittedly sharp reductions felt by most authorities.

Mr. Madel: Is the Minister aware that before the adoption of his policies of giving extra help to inner cities, counties such as Bedfordshire have over the past 20 years taken large numbers of London's overspill and have provided jobs and education in order to help solve the problems of the capital city? Therefore, is there not an unanswerable case for counties such as Bedfordshire to be given an

increase, in real terms, in rate support grant to enable them to do the job which for 20 years central Government have told them to do?

Mr. Shore: The needs of counties and districts in cases of the export of population from elsewhere will be reflected in the size of the needs element granted to Bedfordshire.

Mr. Hurd: Is it no tclear that for most shire counties, particularly for Bedfordshire and Oxfordshire, this will be another year of tightened belts? Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman prevent his ministerial colleagues making foolish speeches and issuing circulars that lead people to expect improvements in services, for example, in the teacher-pupil ratio, while at the same time denying the resources on which such improvements must be based?

Mr. Shore: I do not accept that at all. My right hon. and hon. Friends go round the country making entirely sensible speeches, as one would expect. In the case of Oxfordshire, there was a substantial reduction last year in absolute terms in the amount of grant available. This year there will be an increase in the needs element for Oxfordshire. Therefore, that authority will not be under an intolerable strain.

Mr. Moonman: Since the Secretary of State says that he is prepared to meet Essex Members, is the door still open and will he be prepared to consider further representations? If these matters are being argued on the basis of need, he will no doubt be aware that Basildon has a considerable rate of unemployment.

Mr. Shore: I am not reopening the question of this year's settlement, but I should be only too willing to meet hon. Members from Essex so that we may discuss whether there is any way in which we can assist them in their problems in the following year. There is a cycle in the rate support grant, and it becomes increasingly difficult to alter that cycle as we approach the statutory meeting, and certainly after that meeting has taken place.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the settlement will cause my constituents great anguish,


because even before we begin we shall have to find a 2p rate? Is he also aware that his promises for next year will also fall on deaf ears, because we were promised action last year? What hope can we hold out to constituencies such as mine, in the Isle of Wight, that authorities will be able to maintain their social services and educational services to a sufficient standard in the coming year?

Mr. Shore: That is ultimately a matter for the local authorities. I wish to make it plain that this year we envisage, across the country as a whole, a situation in which local government spending will continue to be stable. We are not envisaging cuts across the country as a whole.

Mr. Newens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that education and other services in Essex have already been severely cut back in the teeth of opposition by many Labour representatives at county level? Is he further aware that the safety net, so far as one can see, will not prevent the need for inordinate increases in the rates to maintain depleted services? Can he offer some hope of a further change, even in the present year?

Mr. Shore: It is counties such as Essex—and there are others, including some metropolitan districts—which have benefited from the safety net. But for the safety net this year, the rate settlement would have had a harsher effect. Therefore, we have tried to take account of the problem. The 2p figure will probably mean a 4 per cent. increase in rates. I do not think that that will impose an intolerable burden on county councils and other authorities.

Mr. Heseltine: When the right hon. Gentleman suggests that he is helping counties this year by the new formula, does he not appreciate that he is only building on last year's injustices? In practice, 14 shire counties will receive less cash in 1978–79 than they did in 1976–77, despite dramatic increases in prices since then. Does he further understand that if he had treated shire counties in the same way as he has treated urban areas in the past three years, shire counties would in 1978–79 receive £350 million more in a year than they would otherwise do? This is the nature of the scale of hardship imposed on shire county ratepayers.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Shore: Before Conservative Members chorus "Hear, hear", I would advise them to have a word with the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre), because they might take a rather different view of the appropriateness and correctness of the right balance to be struck between the assessment of need in different parts of the country. If the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) is asking whether I think the urban and metropolitan areas should be denied the figure of £350 million, I think he is mad.

Mortgage Interest Rates

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek a meeting with representatives of the building societies to persuade them to reduce the interest rates on home loans.

Mr. Freeson: The Government maintain regular contact with the Building Societies Association. There have been three welcome reductions in mortgage rates this year. If receipts continue at present high levels, I am sure that societies will consider a further reduction.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that in October there were record receipts of £590 million by building societies and that that high level has continued into November, in spite of a 1 per cent. drop in interest rates? Does the right hon. Member agree that building societies have been laggardly in passing on reduced interest rates to home buyers? Does he realise that many people believe that there is bogus competition between the building societies that smacks of the worst elements of a cartel, which is not in the public interest?

Mr. Freeson: I do not accept that there has been laggardliness. We have seen several cuts in the interest rate in rapid succession. However, the hon. Gentleman has put his finger, if not directly then indirectly, on an important problem, namely, the balance that must be maintained over a period of time, because there cannot be reactions to situations month by month. Our job—which we carry out jointly with the building societies—has been to maintain stability as far


as possible. That means that in good times we must allow an inflow of money to take place at a certain level without an equivalent outflow into mortgages, so that resources will be available should the inflow drop later, while the outflow would have to be maintained. That is the difficult balancing process that we constantly attempt, together with the Building Societies Association.

Mr. Hooley: What pressure will be brought on the local authorities to bring down their lending rates? There is some bitterness among those holding local authority mortgages that their interest rates are higher than those paid on building society mortgages.

Mr. Freeson: Local authorities have a different financing structure, which gives rise to this problem. It is not a matter of pressure being required. We are watching the Consolidated Fund loan rates that give rise to this pattern. However, at other times building society rates have gone up while local authorities have lagged well behind in their interest rate increases. There is a balancing process, which does not always produce bad results for local authority borrowers.

Mr. McCrindle: With 15 changes in the minimum lending rate during 13 months, entirely as a result of Government policy, will there not certainly be a gap from time to time that can sometimes work to the advantage as well as to the disadvantage of borrowers? Do we not hear much less from hon. Members on the Government side when that happens?

Mr. Freeson: I was not aware that the comments or queries put to me had come from just one side of the House, but I probably accept what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. MacFarquhar: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Building Societies' Association has informed me that there is likely to be a further reduction in the mortgage rate towards the end of the year, or possibly early in January? Will he confirm that his Department is investigating methods by which it is possible to ensure that local authority mortgage rates are brought more into line with the

rates of building societies? What is he proposing to do in this regard?

Mr. Freeson: On the last point, I can only refer my hon. Friend at this stage to the suggestions that we have put in our Green Paper on Housing Policy. On the first point, I am aware that there has been a general statement to this effect, but I would not define the statement that my hon. Friend attributed to the BSA as a decision that has still to be taken.

INDIA (CYCLONE DISASTER)

Mr. Pavitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the urgency of the need for relief for the 10,000 casualties in the disaster in Southern India, I sought your permission for a Private Notice Question. I accept that it was not allowed—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not customary to refer to the fact that an application has been made for a Private Notice Question.

Mr. Pavitt: Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to know whether I should be in order in renewing my application tomorrow, since there has been no ministerial statement on the matter.

Mr. Speaker: I advise the hon. Member to study what I said earlier.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Carlisle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although we have had an hour on Questions to the Department of the Environment, we appear to have reached only Question No. 15. Those who have been in the House throughout the hour will agree that there have not been a particularly large number of supplementary questions on those Questions. Cannot some control be exercised over the length of ministerial answers, in particular?

Mr. Speaker: We have covered 18 Questions this afternoon, but I agree that that is not good enough. I made my appeal at the beginning, but both questions and answers tended to be longer than usual.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (COUNCIL OF MINISTERS' MEETINGS)

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. David Owen): The Foreign Affairs Council met in Brussels on 21st and 22nd November. There was also a joint meeting of Foreign and Finance Ministers, a meeting of the nine Foreign Ministers on Political Cooperation, and a Ministerial meeting of the EEC/Cyprus Association Council.
In political co-operation talks, the nine Foreign Ministers issued a joint statement on President Sadat's courageous initiative. We expressed the hope that his action would pave the way for an early resumption of the Geneva Conference and the negotiation of a comprehensive settlement.
On Africa, we discussed what further steps might be taken to ensure wider international acceptance of the Code of Conduct on Employment Practices for companies of the Nine operating in South Africa; and the need to bring home to the South African Government our concern about the repression of dissent in the light of the Security Council's recent mandatory arms embargo resolution. We issued a statement making clear that we would not recognise the so-called independence of Bophuthatswana.
My colleagues and I agreed that it was too early to make a judgment about the final results of the Belgrade Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe follow-up meeting. We discussed the Community position over follow-up meetings after Belgrade.
The problem of United Kingdom and Irish budgetary contributions in 1978 and 1979 under Article 131 of the Treaty of Accession was discussed at the Joint Meeting of Foreign and Finance Ministers on the evening of 21st November. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary will take an early opportunity to inform the House about this.
The Council had a general discussion on the serious crisis facing the European steel industry and agreed to return to the subject next month.
There was broad agreement in discussion of the new regional development fund on the desirability of maintaining or

increasing the fund's activity. But it was not possible to reach agreement yesterday on a number of outstanding points, including the size of the fund in 1978, which will probably be discussed at the European Council on 5th and 6th December.
Other subjects covered include the mandate for negotiations on an agricultural agreement on Cyprus. I shall circulate in the Official Report fuller details of the outcome of the Council.

Mr. John Davies: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. I wish to associate this side of the House with the Community's remarks on the subject of President Sadat's courageous initiative, and I express the hope that it will be recognised that what he has done is to assert the commitment to peace. That is of great value in the present tense situation. I express the hope also that there will be a positive response to the initiative taken by President Sadat.
On the code of conduct in respect of South Africa, will the Foreign Secretary say whether there was consultation with the organisation representing employers in Europe before the code was defined, particularly in relation to the apparent device of segregating black and white unions, which would seem to entrench the racial division within the framework of the industrial enterprise and which seems hardly desirable?
On the subject of the budget, and bearing in mind the very important sums, involving, I understand, upwards of £500 million, will the Foreign Secretary accept that we support the Government's view in this matter and hope that no compromise will be accepted which substantially increases what should be our proper contribution to this budget?
Finally, on the subject of the regional fund, we recognise that to reach this stage of the year without any certainty as to the future of the fund, given its importance to this country, appears to be an indecision on the part of the Community which represents serious dangers to those who have to plan in these matters.

Dr. Owen: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about President Sadat's initiative. I am sure that the whole House will wish it well


and will believe that it has broken through the wall of mistrust. We have yet to see how much progress it will produce, but I believe that things will never be the same after that visit.
On the code of conduct, I confirm that no formal consultations have taken place with the European employers or trade unions. I raised this issue when it was discussed by the Council of Ministers. The general feeling was that it was impossible to hold these conversations without the Community position being revealed, and it was felt that there should be consultations afterwards. It was felt also that the code would have to be modified after a year anyhow in the light of experience. I can confirm that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade is anxious to commend the code to British companies with subsidiaries in South Africa and to provide explanatory guidance. He is to discuss this guidance with the CBI and the TUC in this country.
The hon. Member referred to the question of black trade unionism. I should have thought that all hon. Members thought that this matter cut across both black and white, and in the peculiar circumstances of South Africa it is widely recognised that the recognition of black trade unions is inevitable and is one of the major steps forward in eradicating segregation at work.
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's support on Article 131. This is a major decision, and a lot of money is involved. That is why it would be right for my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to reflect on the discussions which took place before deciding formally what will be our position.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of the regional fund. The Government's position has been quite clear throughout the discussions. We wish, an expansion of the fund. The sooner we can reach a decision on that, the easier it will be to carry out forward planning.

Mr. Spearing: On the question of the regional fund, does my right hon. Friend not agree that since July the EEC Assembly has received increased powers of recommendations over the budget? If it wanted a large regional fund, would that not create a dangerous confrontation

between the Assembly and the Council, and if it were directly elected would that not be an even greater source of friction?

Dr. Owen: The recommendation that the figure for the regional fund should be 750 million EUAs—that is about £400 million—was originally put forward by the Commission for the first year. That seems reasonable to the Government, and it was endorsed by the European Assembly.
This is a case where the European Assembly has been acting in the best interests of the Community as a whole and of Britain and other areas with severe regional economic difficulties. I welcome the pressure on some member States to increase the regional fund, but that does not mean that the powers would be increased. That would have to be agreed between the Assembly and the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Russell Johnston: As for Belgrade, is it not the case that the European Community representatives have consciously avoided making any relationship between the trade links in Basket 2 and the human rights issue in Basket 3? If that is the case, should we not give Mr. Orlov and his colleagues some support? Is it likely, as has been rumoured, that Belgrade will drag on into February, and possibly even later?

Dr. Owen: I am not certain when Belgrade will end. Personally, I shall be surprised if it ends before Christmas. At this stage it is too early to try to assess the credit and loss account at Belgrade. It is true that the Community has agreed a position. It has been broadly agreed with the United States and many of the neutral countries that we should avoid going to Belgrade and having a confrontation inasmuch as there has been a discussion on issues which hitherto have never been discussed. To that extent, it has been successful. I cannot claim that a great dialogue has taken place. I cannot yet claim that any great progress, especially on human rights, has been maintained.
Governments have taken the view that individual cases are best discussed within general principles, but individuals have raised individual cases, such as the one referred to by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), on which there


is strong feeling. I hope that all the countries that are a party to the Belgrade discussions will recognise that they cannot ignore public feeling if we are to make progress in these discussions. I think that the point is being made clearly and forcibly at Belgrade that those who are monitoring progress on the Helsinki Act should not suffer the consequences for their monitoring.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that the time devoted to these matters will come out of the debate that is subject to a timetable motion. I hope that the House will be aware of that and that hon. Members will ask brief questions.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Did the Council discuss the French Government's threat to the regional fund, or has that threat been made since the Council met? If it has, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is a serious matter? Did the Council discuss the confrontation between Britain and the rest of the member States, except Ireland, brought about by the claim made so bravely by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that Britain has the right to take unilateral conservation measures up to 200 miles? Was that discussed? If it was, how was the matter left?

Dr. Owen: Our position on our right to take conservation measures is firm and rests on the Hague Agreement that I negotiated last year, on which Britain stays quite positive and firm.
The regional fund was discussed. The French wish to change the present key. Once we start unravelling the basic key I believe that it will become almost impossible to reach agreement on the regional fund. I believe that it is wise to keep to the present key. However, further discussions are taking place to ascertain whether some flexibility can be found—for instance, on the non-quota section, if that section were to be agreed.

Mr. Dalyell: Was anything said about the Davignon plan to bring non-steel work to steel areas within the Community?

Dr. Owen: My hon. Friend draws attention to the very serious situation that faces the steel industry. This is an inter

national problem. The steel industry worldwide faces a severe problem. The discussion on steel was not as specific and detailed as many of us had hoped, but we have been promised firm Commission proposals to deal with restructuring and some of the employment implications to which my hon. Friend has referred. They have been promised well before the next Council meeting. I think that at the next Council some firm decisions will have to be taken. That is the position of the British and French Governments.

Mr. Marten: Does the Community support the British Government's policy towards Rhodesia? What is its attitude towards the question of the forces that might have to take over? What is the legal status of the sort of foreign affairs statements that the Community issues, such as statements on Rhodesia, South Africa and Sadat?

Dr. Owen: Political co-operation is extra the treaty, so they have no legal or juridical foundation. They are merely statements of an agreed view between the Foreign Ministers of the Nine. As for Rhodesia, the Community countries have strongly supported the Anglo-United States initiative. One of the interesting things throughout the past few months has been the solidarity of the Community in dealing with a number of complex African problems—for example, the internal situation in South Africa, Namibia, Rhodesia and Zaire. We should not forget that France, Belgium, to a lesser extent Germany, and Italy have all had historically strong involvement with and interests in Africa. That means that the Community can speak with some authority on that continent.

Mr. Roper: Was there any further discussion on progress in member States towards legislation on direct elections? Was the German Minister able to indicate whether there had yet been agreement in Germany on the method of election to be adopted?

Dr. Owen: The Germans are confident that there will be agreement on how they handle the particular problems of the list system. They are agreed that there should be a list system. All that remains is the question how they split it up with reference to the Länder. I am not aware


whether they have reached agreement. The Germans believe that they can reach the May-June target date. It is clear that eight members of the Community can meet that target date. They are looking to us, and they will pay particular attention to when we discuss the method. If we were to agree to a regional list system, I believe that it would be possible to meet the May-June 1978 target date.

Sir Bernard Braise: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the most dangerous and intractable problems facing the Community is the continued deadlock in Cyprus? Is he aware of the continued refusal of the Turks to give any information about missing Greek Cypriots? On humanitarian grounds alone there is every reason for the Community to act as one. Was there any disposition on behalf of the Council of Ministers to think along those lines?

Dr. Owen: The Community discussed the EEC-Cyprus association agreement. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office made it clear that he thought that the Community position was not understanding enough to Cyprus. The discussion was on economic issues. There was no discussion of a political settlement. The political settlement has been held up by a number of problems, not least that there will plainly have to be elections for the President of Cyprus, and the situation following the Turkish elections. I have no doubt that this is a subject on which there must be further movement. The inter-communal talks must come down to discussing the nitty-gritty of both a constitution and the territorial claim. Some other way must be found to introduce a more serious discussion of the necessary compromises on both issues.

Mr. Hooley: On South Africa, was there any discussion of the possibility of taking the initiative within the United Nations to impose an oil embargo? Has any progress been made following the suggestion that ministerial meetings should be in public in future?

Dr. Owen: There was no discussion of an oil embargo. The discussion was limited to possible economic measures, and no decisions were taken. It was agreed that the study of those measures would continue. As for the Council of

Foreign Ministers meeting in public, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy attempted to get an open discussion on an issue of conservation policy at the last Energy Council meeting, when he held the presidency. That proposal was rejected. I believe that there are some Council meetings that could be held in public with advantage, and that is the view of the Government. There are other sessions, especially those that are effectively negotiating sessions, when it is wise not to meet in public. There is a balance that needs to be struck.

Mr. Temple-Morris: On Southern Africa, was any reference made to trying to influence certain members of the American Administration to refer less rashly to South Africa in general, and especially to Mr. Vorster and Mr. Smith, to whom we have to talk? Was any reference made to that, and to trying to influence them to behave in a more statesmanlike manner?

Dr. Owen: No.

Mr. Molloy: On Southern Africa and Rhodesia, was any reference made to the courage of many white people in both Southern Africa and Rhodesia who abhor apartheid and demonstrate and say so, and who want democratic rights created? A word of encouragement in this House and in the EEC for their efforts—I refer to the white people in Southern Africa and Rhodesia—would not come amiss.

Dr. Owen: I agree with my hon. Friend. This was raised in the question of the code of conduct. The argument for the code of conduct is that this is a way of peacefully influencing attitudes towards apartheid in South Africa. It has been very interesting that this has received quite a warm welcome inside South Africa. The Financial Mail, which is a reputable South African economic journal, said that there was nothing in the code of conduct which would act against South African existing legislation, that it could be implemented, that it should be implemented and that all that was needed was the guts to implement it.

Mr. Newens: Was there any discussion of the need for the representation of the Palestinians at Geneva? Does anybody in the Community believe that any real


progress towards a lasting peace can be brought about until this is provided for?

Dr. Owen: The statement issued by the Council of Foreign Ministers stated in one of its paragraphs:
It is urgent that genuine peace at last be achieved for all the peoples of the area, including the Palestinian people, on the basis of the principles recognised by the international community which are embodied in particular in the declaration of the European Council of 29 June 1977.
So there is a strong recogntion that the Palestinian problem must be grappled with, and it would have to be grappled with at any Geneva conference.

Following is the information:

In addition to the items covered in my oral statement the Council discussed the following subjects.

Commissioner Cheysson told the Council of the importance the Commission attached to the dried skimmed milk programme for 1978 and to maintaining its present level. Various aspects of this question will be followed up in subsequent meetings of the Council.

The Council agreed a mandate for the negotiation of a trade agreement between the Community and the Chinese People's Republic and agreed that the Committee of Permanent Representatives should work on a draft mandate for a renewed trade agreement with Yugoslavia. It was also agreed that negotiations should open for the second phase of the EEC-Cyprus Agreement on agriculture. The Council heard a report from the President-in-Office on the latest developments in the Common Fund Conference in Geneva.

On Fisheries, the Council agreed that an attempt should be made to break the deadlock in fisheries negotiations with the Soviet Union by sending the Soviet Government a list of Community vessels which the Community wishes to be licensed to fish in the Barents Sea.

The Commission reported on the bilateral textiles negotiations. My right honourable Friend the Secretary of State for Trade emphasised the importance of adhering to the agreed mandate and of preparing the autonomous measures which will be necessary if the results of the bilateral negotiations are not satisfactory. The Commission confirmed that the mandate would be observed.

The Council discussed the preparations for the European Council meeting on 5th-6th December. It took note of a Danish statement on home rule for Greenland and considered the development of the EEC-ASEAN dialogue. It agreed to approve an increase requested by the Commission in the subsistence allowances for Community staff and to prolong the secretarial allowance pending a decision on the staff regulation revision.

SCOTLAND BILL (DIVISION)

Mr. Rifkind: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Column 1402 of the Official Report which was published this morning purports to state that in the Division on the Question proposing that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill, in yesterday's debate on the Scotland Bill, the Ayes were 184 and the Noes 199. However a scrutiny of the Division List shows that two Members—the hon. Members for Paddington (Mr. Latham) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick)—voted in both Lobbies in that Division. Indeed, in the previous Division, I think that the hon. Member for Paddington voted in both Lobbies.
I suggest that the Official Report is misleading as it purports to suggest that 383 hon. Members took part in the Division, whereas it is clear that only 381 hon. Members in fact took part. Whereas on previous occasions an hon. Member has sometimes by accident voted in one Lobby, realised his mistake and voted in the other, it would appear from various reports that have been made that on this occasion the hon. Members concerned deliberately voted in both Lobbies and, according to certain reports, intend to continue doing so in future Divisions. If this is the case, Mr. Speaker, is it not necessary to ensure that the Official Report is slightly less misleading in indicating the total number of hon. Members who take part in Divisions?

Mr. Arthur Latham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It will be found that "Erskine May" provides for circumstances in which it is permissible for a Member to vote in more than one Lobby.
May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House to the fact that there is no voting procedure within the House for recording positive abstention? It might commend itself to the Chair and to the House that this is a novel way of recording abstention. May I further say, in response to the point of order, that as regards accidents, there are sometimes in the course of life, and certainly in the House of Commons, occasions for deliberate mistake.

Mr. Speaker: First, I have no wish to contradict the arithmetic of the hon.


Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind). This is not the first time that hon. Members have by mistake or for some other reason found themselves in two Lobbies.
I have the permission of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) to quote from a letter which my predecessor sent to him about a similar incident. On 30th April 1973 my predecessor wrote this:
I do not, of course, know why the Members concerned acted as they did; but I am told that it is by no means unknown for a Member who finds that he has voted in the wrong lobby, or who has realised too late that he ought not to have voted at all because he was 'paired', to walk immediately through the other lobby in order to cancel his vote. Such action has always been regarded as permissible and in no way a breach of Order.
I am quite prepared to take time to consider this matter, but I think the hon. Gentleman will find that where "Erskine May" refers to people voting in both Lobbies it is regarded as a mistake rather than a demonstration. It would be quite new in our proceedings if we were to have a separate list for Members who vote in both Lobbies because they find it difficult to decide. I had better say no more on that.

FIRE SERVICE (DISPUTE)

Mr. Grylls: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the living and working conditions of the Service men who are acting as firemen in the present dispute.
I maintain that this matter is specific as some 14,500 soldiers, sailors, Royal Marines and airmen are actually involved, and many of these Service men are at present working between 80 and 100 hours a week in appalling conditions. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that I carry the whole House and you with me when I say that the living and working conditions of Service men are a matter of grave importance to all Members of the House. They are, after all, our constituents.
The matter is important because I am certain that the House will want to cross-examine Ministers as to why, for example,

these Service men are not allowed to live in the comfortable, warm and modern fire stations but, instead, are forced to live in squalor and filth in leaky huts and draughty drill halls. Hon. Members will want to ask about that. Some hon. Members will want to tell the Government that it is a scandal that public property is not allowed to be used. While soldiers are risking their lives by day, by night they have to be prepared to doss down like tramps. That is why I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will consider this matter to be important.
The matter is also urgent because only the House can force Ministers to do something to make the lives of these Service men tolerable in this emergency situation. These brave Service men who are undertaking this duty deserve urgent action being taken by the Secretary of State for Defence, or by the Home Secretary. As Ministers are responsible, after all, for this confrontation and as they sleep cosily in their beds at night, it might cause them to think about the living conditions that these Service men must endure and do something about it rather than just come to the House and say nothing. I hope that an opportunity will be presented urgently for something to be done about this matter.
The matter is also urgent because working conditions of these Service men are extremely dangerous for very obvious reasons. I was the first person to raise, about a week ago, the question of breathing apparatus. Various statements have been made. This is not the time to debate the issue. I know that it is not easy to train people, but it can be done as a crash course in two and a half hours.
Be that as it may, I believe that hon. Members will want to have a debate so that they can ask the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence why the troops cannot use the available equipment to protect not only their own lives—many Service men are being admitted to hospital each day suffering from fumes and smoke and with their lungs badly affected—but the lives of others, because nobody appears to have explained how the Service men are to save the life of a child in a back room when the house is filled with smoke. It is a question of the lives of the Service men and the lives of the civilians involved in a fire. This is why the matter is urgent.
This is, as I am sure the whole House realises, a national emergency. I hope that time will be provided so that the House can speak up for these brave people who are keeping the country going at present.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) gave me notice this morning, before 12 o'clock, that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the living and working conditions of the Service men who are acting as firemen in the present dispute.
The House knows that I do not have to decide on the importance of an issue. I am limited to the narrow question whether the business should take precedence over that set down for today or tomorrow.
I have taken into account everything that the hon. Member has said, but I have to rule that the hon. Member's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 9th DECEMBER

Members successful in the Ballot were:

Mr. Graham Page
Mr. Anthony Steen
Mr. Peter Bottomley

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 4 (Statutory Instruments, &amp;c. (procedure)), the Motions relating to Agriculture may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock or for one and a half hours after they have been entered upon, whichever is the later.—[Mr. Tinn.]

Orders of the Day — SCOTLAND BILL

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 22nd November].

[Mr. OSCAR MURTON in the Chair]

4.1 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: on a point of order, Mr. Murton. I should like to raise a point of order of which I have given you notice. It concerns the legitimacy of amendments, particularly those in relation to England.
It may be within your recollection, Mr. Murton, that on 10th February 1977 the Temporary Chairman, then the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden), said:
Before calling the Minister of State to move the new clause, I ought perhaps to mention that right hon. and hon. Members will have read in Hansard a point of order which the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) raised last Tuesday. I think that I can set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest.
He went on to say:
The Chairman of Ways and Means has asked me to say that, in his view, were the referendum paper to contain what might be described as 'the independence question', this would not affect the unity of the United Kingdom unless some specific provision also existed to give practical effect to an affirmative answer. Amendments which involve no such provision are, therefore, not in this respect inconsistent with Clause I to which the Committee has agreed.
He said later:
It may save both him and me some time if I tell him now that the Chairman of Ways and Means has previously ruled that the scope of the Bill is related to the government of Scotland and Wales, and he has ruled earlier today that this new clause is within its scope. Therefore, as wiser heads than mine have decided this, I do not see that there is any point in the hon. and learned Gentleman's pursuing the matter."—[Official Report, 10th February 1977; Vol. 925, c. 1787–9.]
My point of order is to ask for your guidance, Mr. Murton, in the light of events last night, as to whether, unlike the previous occasion in the spring when we debated these matters, it might be thought, in the absence of Clause 1, more acceptable to you and the Chair to accept amendments that relate to England and the unity of the United Kingdom.

The Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for having given me notice of this matter. I can only rule, as I ruled on 18th January this year in another but not dissimilar context, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, that
in deciding whether a particular amendment is or is not within the scope of the Bill"—
or ought to be selected—
I shall endeavour to use exactly the same criteria as my predecessors have always used in the case of other equally long and complicated Bills."—[Official Report, 18th January 1977; Vol. 924, c. 97.]
I might add that one of these criteria is, and always has been, the effect upon the Bill of any amendments that have previously been made by the Committee.

Mr. Graham Page: On another point of order, Mr. Murton. In your wisdom of selection, you have chosen Amendment No. 39 as the third item within this period. As the debate has developed on Amendment No. 17 and those grouped with it, it seems that it would be convenient to take Amendment No. 39 within that group. I wonder whether that would be convenient for you, Mr. Murton, and for the Committee.

The Chairman: I had prior knowledge, a few minutes ago, of the matter that the right hon. Gentleman wished to raise with me. However, I do not think that it would be appropriate at this stage of the debate to introduce yet another amendment into the already large series now under discussion.

Clause 2

THE SCOTTISH ASSEMBLY

Amendment proposed [22nd November], No. 17, in page 1, line 15, after the word "Assembly", to insert the words:
'the members of which shall be elected by that system of proportional voting specified under this Act'.—[Mr. Mackintosh.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

The Chairman: With this we may take the following amendments: No. 18, in page 1, line 15, at end insert—
'( ) Each vote in the election try each Assembly constituency shall be a Single Transferable Vote, that is to say a vote—

(a) capable of being given so as to indicate the voter's order of preference for the candidates for election as members for the constituency, and

(b) capable of being transferred to the next choice—

(i) when the vote is not required to give a prior choice the necessary quota of votes, or
(ii) when, owing to the deficiency in the number of votes given for a prior choice, that choice is eliminated from the list of candidates'.

No. 21, in page 1, line 16, leave out
'Subject to subsection (3) below the initial
and insert The initial constituency'.

No. 26, in page 1, line 20, leave out 'three' and insert 'two'.

No. 27, in page 1, line 20, after 'initial', insert constituency'.

No. 28, in page 1, line 21, leave out '125' and insert '111'.

No. 29, in page 1, line 23, leave out 'two' and insert 'one'.

No. 35, in page 2, line 3, after 'The' insert 'constituency'.

No. 37, in page 2, line 3, at end insert 'constituency'.

No. 40, in page 2, line 7, at end insert—
'(5) Fifty additional members of the Assembly shall be elected by the system of proportional voting set out in Part V of Schedule 1 to the Act based upon the entitlement which each elector shall have at such election and all subsequent ordinary elections to cast a second vote such votes being referred to in this Act as "party votes".
(6) The number of additional members of the Assembly other than at the first ordinary election of members of the Assembly shall be half the number of constituency members at the ordinary election concerned (rounded up to the nearest whole number).
(7) Notwithstanding any provision of this Act the Assembly may at any time after the first ordinary election review the suitability and fairness of the system of proportional voting prescribed by this Act and may make such regulations amending that system as the Assembly may prescribe by Bill which Bill shall be subject to the powers of rejection contained in Part VI of Schedule 1 to this Act and pending any such amendment the system of proportional voting prescribed by this Act for the first ordinary election shall apply to succeeding ordinary elections.'.

No. 41, in page 2, line 9, after 'initial' insert 'constituency'.

No. 129, in Schedule 1, page 40, line 12, leave out '125' and insert '111'.

No. 130, in Schedule 1, page 40, line 12, leave out 'three' and insert 'two'.

No. 131, in Schedule 1, page 40, line 14, leave out 'two' and insert 'one'.

No. 132, in Schedule 1, page 40, line 14, leave out 'constituencies' and insert 'constituency'.

No. 133, in Schedule 1, page 41, line 25, at end insert—

'PART V

ELECTION OF ADDITIONAL MEMBERS

15.—(1) No person shall be eligible to be elected as an additional member unless his name was listed as an adopted list candidate at the ordinary election concerned.

(2) No party shall be an eligible party so as to be eligible for allocation of additional member seats to its adopted list candidates under this Schedule unless it secured 5 per cent. or more of the total of all party votes validly cast at the ordinary election concerned.

16. The process of election of additional members shall be as follows:

(1) The number of addition members to be returned at the ordinary election concerned shall be ascertained in accordance with section 2 of this Act.
(2) Prioriy lists showing the priority as between adopted list candidates shall be democratically drawn up by each party and shall not contain more names than there are additional member seats to be allocated at the ordinary election concerned. A person standing for election as a constituency member may be eligible for inclusion on his party's priority list.
(3) The valid party votes cast at the ordinary election concerned for each eligible party shall be added and the total in each case divided by the sum of the number of candidates of each eligible party returned as constituency member at that election plus one.
(4) The results of the calculations made in sub-paragraph (3) of this paragraph shall be compared and the first person to be elected an additional member shall be the first candidate on the priority list of the eligible party obtaining the highest number as a result of those calculations who is not already a member.
(5) The calculations made in sub-paragraph (3) of this paragraph shall be repeated after adding the additional member elected in accordance with sub-paragraph (4) of this paragraph to the denominator sum of the eligible party of which he was an adopted candidate.
(6) The results of the calculations made in sub-paragraph (5) of this paragraph shall be compared and the next person to be elected an additional member shall be the first candidate on the priority list of the eligible party obtaining the highest number as a result of those calculations who is not already a member.
(7) The remaining additional members shall be elected one by one by application of the same system of calculation and election as is prescribed in the preceding sub-paragraphs of this paragraph.

(8) In this paragraph "party" means a political party whose principal objects include the adoption of candidates for election to the Scottish Assembly.
(9) Her Majesty may by Order in Council make regulations for the drawing up and publication of priority lists by parties and the form of ballot paper to be used for ordinary elections to the Assembly under this part of this Act but no recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty in Council to make such an Order until a draft of the Order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

PART VI

REVISION OF PROPORTIONAL VOTING SYSTEM

17.—(1) If it appears to the Secretary of State that a Bill passed by the Scottish Assembly under the provisions of section 2(6) of this Act would not be in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole he may lay the Bill before Parliament together with a statement that in his opinion it ought not to be submitted to Her Majesty in Council.

(2) A Bill laid before Parliament under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall be subject to the same powers of rejection and procedures as a Bill laid before Parliament under subsection (3) of section 36 of this Act.'.

No. 151, in Clause 5, page 3, line 18, at end insert—
'(c) as to the method of voting, and the method of counting and transferring votes.'

No. 77, in Clause 6, page 3, line 40, after 'a', insert 'constituency'.

No. 80, in Clause 6, page 4, line 9, at end insert—
(5) Subject to subsection (4) of this section where the seat of an additional member of an Assembly is vacated the vacancy shall be filled by the first willing candidate of the party of the vacating member on the relevant Party priority list as prepared at the preceding ordinary election under the provisions of Part V of Schedule 1 to this Act such candidate not already being a member and having indicated his willingness to fill the vacancy as required by the standing orders of the Assembly.'.

Mr. Francis Pym: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) is not able to be in his place, because I thought that he made a very strong and logical argument yesterday, but it was in some particulars a different case from the one that he argued in January. In January he envisaged an Assembly of 100 Members. Yesterday he argued the case for an Assembly of 150 Members. That is a considerable increase.
Many of us think that that is too large and too expensive. I certainly think so. It might have been wiser if the hon. Gentleman had adhered to the scheme of the original size. But as he protested the simplicity of the added Member system, in which there is a great deal of interest in the Committee, I thought of the lot of work that would still have to be done to explain the change to the public. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) asked some of the pertinent questions that would have to have a much wider public discussion before a scheme of this kind could be generally acceptable in this country.
If electoral reform is to be introduced, it must be done on its own merits, as an improvement on the arrangements that we now have. I do not think that there can be any other basis upon which such a change could be justified.
There has been talk in this debate of trying to frustrate the nationalists or one group or another by this reform, but I do not think that a reform of this kind should be brought in on that basis. It cannot be sound to change the rules with the objective of trying to frustrate any particular group or party. If the rules are to be changed, surely that should be done on principle and on their own merits, because such a change is judged to be an improvement on any of the alternatives or on the system that we already have. If that criterion is not fulfilled, I do not think that we ought to have a change at all.
It follows from that, of course, that if the Committee decides to leave the system unchanged, all the consequences of our present first-past-the-post system remain. This means an acceptance of the fact that a majority of seats will be achieved on a minority of votes, whether it be by a small minority of votes or, conceivably, by a very large minority of votes. It also means an acceptance of the fact that whichever party wins a majority of seats will be fully entitled to put forward thereafter its policies and the case upon which it was elected. We cannot have it both ways. The Committee must decide.
In the context of the Bill, I cannot say that I think that the House of Commons sounds ready for or is yet receptive of such a change. Certainly on the Conservative Benches there will be a free

vote on this matter. Indeed, I think that it is to be a free vote throughout the House. I do not intend to tender advice I am known personally to be sympathetic to change. However, I think that an Assembly of 150 Members is too large, and I do not wish to vote for an Assembly of that size. Nor do I wish to vote for an amendment which has as part of its consequences the handing over to the Assembly of the responsibility of deciding how to conduct the elections that take place after the first election. I believe that that is a responsibility that the House of Commons ought always to retain absolutely for itself.
Therefore, there are those disadvantages. But we dislike the whole of the Bill and the concept behind it, and while the changing of the method of election to the Assembly to one of proportional representation may be a marginal improvement, it cannot possibly remedy the underlying weaknesses inherent in the method of devolution proposed. To that extent I do not think that a decision on this amendment is crucial.
This has been a useful debate and certainly a very important one in the general context of proportional representation, but I do not think that the result of the vote is critical in the context of the Committee stage of this Bill, because I think that the difference it would make would be only of a marginal kind. There are other matters that we want to bring about in the Bill which would have a more fundamental and far-reaching effect upon the operation of it. I do not think that this is one of them.

Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. You will be aware that in this section of the guillotine, which concludes in two hours and 50 minutes, we have to dispose not only of the present group of amendments but of four other groups, including Clause 2 stand part, Schedule 1 and Clause 3. In the light of that, I beg to move that the Question be now put.

The Chairman: The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) raised this matter with me yesterday. I said at that time that this was entirely a question for the discretion of the Chair and that the Chair must make the decision in the light of all the


circumstances. At this present time I regret that I cannot accede to the motion.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: Further to the point of order, Mr. Murton. Might I humbly submit that you should not be in a position of regret about your ruling? The reason we are faced with this problem is the guillotine overall. It would have been within your perception that there were half a dozen Members who wished still to speak to this amendment. Therefore, it should not be a matter of regret that you cannot accept the motion proposed by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). I am sure that it is the wish of the Committee that the debate should continue, and it is a matter of sadness that we shall not have more time in which to debate the other amendments.

The Chairman: The use of the word "regret" was entirely as a matter of politeness to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury who raised the matter originally. The Chair has no views, regrets or otherwise. The Chair must do its duty.

Mr. George Cunningham: Further to the point of order. Nobody is going to blame me for the guillotine. I completely accept that the discretion must lie with the Chair whether to accept a motion for the closure, but you are faced with a dilemma, Mr. Murton, between either closing the debate on this group of amendments or not only closing the debate on the later group of amendments, which will be done automatically by the guillotine, but also ensuring, by a side wind of that, that there will not even be any vote on the later amendments. That is a very difficult position for you to be in. Neither the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) nor I put you in this situation, but I think that in reaching your decisions within that context the Committee surely would want you to give it the maximum opportunity at least to vote on later amendments. That will not be possible on any other amendment than the present one that we are on now, unless this debate is brought to a close comfortably before 7 p.m., in order to get the vote out of the way before 7 p.m.
The worst thing of all is that it is going to be the case—it does not matter

much on this section of the guillotine—on every other section of the guillotine. All the Government have to do to prevent a vote taking place on a dangerous amendment—which is what I am worrying about—is to get someone to put in a preceding amendment and keep the debate going. There will be plenty of people to back up the Government in this. We shall be deprived not only of debate but of a vote as well. I want Members to understand that that is the situation, and if we do not do something about it on this section of the guillotine we shall have to do something about it on the later section of the guillotine.

The Chairman: I take note of what the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said. I quite understand his views. The Chair has to use its own discretion and the Chair can only do that.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I entirely and respectfully associate myself with the principle enunciated by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), that a constitutional change of this importance should not be made, even for one part of the United Kingdom, except on its evident merits and also after the fullest possible discussion by this House.
I do not think that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) is without those who sympathise with his point of view when we realise that the four hours of debate already devoted to this group of amendments have so far only served to indicate how many facets there are to this whole question of a change from direct to proportional representation.
I want to refer at the outset to a general consideration. In almost every speech made on the subject of proportional representation, it appears to be taken for granted that it is desirable that representation should be fair, in the sense of somehow mathematically reflecting in the elected Assembly the proportion of individual political opinions in the electorate from which it derives its mandate.
I do not believe that that is a correct view of this House or a correct view of any representative House which this House ought to be party to setting up inside the United Kingdom. This House is essentially a representation of the parts


of the kingdom. We all sit here as the representatives of our respective constituencies. Although, of course, the grounds on which we, rather than others, have been chosen to represent our constituencies are party grounds, and although, without that link of party, there would be no meaning in the democratic process, the fact remains—and it is fundamental—that we are not here representing a numerical slab of the electorate of the whole United Kingdom. We are each representing a specific place and a specific comunity and its people. Indeed, this fact is embalmed in our very name, House of Commons, which does not mean the House of the common people or the House of commoners. It means the House in which the communities which make up the realm are represented.
The first-past-the-post system, so often despised—particularly by foreigners who do not understand many of the essential characteristics of this House—has the merit that it is the natural and appropriate way of selecting one person unambiguously to represent one community. It is from this fact about the House of Commons that we derive the importance of our constituency links—something that we come up against as soon as we begin to investigate any form of proportional representation because the link of a Member with his constituency is inevitably diminished, though to varying degrees, by any system of proportional representation whatever. [Interruption.]
I already have the assent of my hon. Friends representing constituencies in Northern Ireland, for we in Northern Ireland have witnessed—it continues today at the level of local government—the effect upon representation which is produced by proportional representation under the single transferable vote system, namely, that there is no representative whom any constituent can hold uniquely responsible or accountable for anything to which that representative assents. All is wrapped up in a kind of collective anonymity—the collective anonymity of the lumping together of constituencies and the collective anonymity of a group of people who are elected together by the single transferable vote.
If we value, as I believe we ought to value as the very basis of our authority, our individual constituency function and

responsibility, we encounter at the outset a severe, if not a fatal, objection to the principle of proportional representation.
When the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) whom we miss this afternoon, was explaining his particular scheme, I think that all hon. Members, whether they were disposed or not to agree with him, were struck and were indeed shocked by the phenomenon of one-third of the Assembly who would have no constituencies at all. Unlike the giant of Greek mythology who lost his strength when he was lifted off the ground, these are to be Members who are apparently off the ground all the time, who will never touch down.
Even if one were determined to experiment with such a fantastic system as to have one-third of the Members unbeneficed while the rest were in direct and responsible contact with their constituents, I cannot imagine a less appropriate context for the experiment than the Assembly which unfortunately we are setting up under this Bill, an Assembly to deal with those very subjects where constant and intimate knowledge, and responsible knowledge of the problems, hardships, difficulties, and experiences one's constituents meet, is the very basis of the advice which is worth giving in a deliberative Assembly.

Mr. Russell Johnston: The right hon. Gentleman has used exaggerated phrases, such as "a fantastic system". It is, nevertheless, a system that operates and works—and appears to work well—in the German Federal Republic. The right hon. Gentleman cannot argue that the Germans are so vastly different from us in their appreciation of and capacity for operating competently.

Mr. Powell: I have always made it a principle—and it does not go against the grain—to refrain from any criticism which would imply dispraise of the institutions of other countries. But we are here in our House of Commons, deliberating what measures we wish to put upon our statute book, and what Assemblies, on the basis of our experience in this House, we shall set up for devolving to them our own responsibilities in this place. So I do not believe we can be regarded as casting contempt upon those who come from a different tradition, and


whose associations of government, of representation and of authority have different origins from our own, if we lean primarily on the experience that we in this House, and those before us, have drawn from our institutions.

Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he find any difficulty in opposing the idea of a minority of Members of a Scottish legislature not having a territorial responsibility when, at the same time, as I understand it, he fully supports the present composition of the legislature at Westminster, one House of which has no Members who have a territorial responsibility?

Mr. Powell: I have taken part in debates enough on proposals for the reform of the other House but what we are discussing today is the body to which this House of Commons intends to devolve—I fear it will prove "to transfer", and I fear it will be "to transfer irrevocably" if we do this—its responsibilities. We are not here concerned with what may be the residual, or what may be the useful functions of the other House of Parliament. We are concerned with the functions of this House and of another subordinate House which, in a sense, we are creating in our own image
The effect of proportional representation varies immensely—this is what often introduces confusion into this discussion—according to the pattern of distribution of the political population in the territory concerned. Let me explain what I mean.
If those who are of one political point of view tend to be concentrated in certain constituencies, the difference between the results of proportional representation and of first-past-the-post will be nil or minimal. That was the experience in Northern Ireland when, to the surprise and dismay of those who thought they would correct imaginary jerrymandering by introducing proportional representation for elections in Northern Ireland, it was discovered that the proportion of representatives returned who were Unionists and non-Unionists repectively was basically what it had been before. That was predictable, given the layout, so

to speak, of the population in Northern Ireland.
On the other hand, the further one moves from that end of the spectrum towards the other end, at which political opinions are broadcast and peppered uniformly over all the constituencies, the bigger becomes the difference between the results of first-past-the-post and of proportional representation.
The usual phenomenon with which those who recommend proportional representation are concerned is this latter situation, namely, that the various contending political parties are spread so evenly that minorities have an exceptional handicap, under the first-past-the-post system, in breaking through the sound barrier and obtaining substantial representation, while on the other hand there is no necessary relationship between the proportion of a political view in the electorate and the representation of that political view in terms of membership of the elected Assembly.
We have these particular amendments before us today because there is here a special case within this latter case, namely, where one of the political parties is of a special kind—a political party which exists to reject the framework within which the elections are to take place and the franchise is to be exercised. We should not be having this debate but for the existence of the SNP as a formidable element at the moment in the makeup of the Scottish political spectrum. Indeed, some of us think that that is why we are here discussing this subject at all. However, I have no wish to be controversial in anything that I say. So far as I know, nothing that I have said lip to now is other than totally factual. Therefore, perhaps I was unwise even to stray into that subordinate clause.
I return to the consequences that are feared by those on both sides of the argument. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) says—and says rightly—that under proportional representation we shall less often have an overall majority for one political party. Therefore, says he, we shall more often have a greater risk of having a coalition between a party that is in favour of the Union and a party that is against it. I do not see how the hon. Gentleman's proposition can be disputed, and I agree with him—and so do


my hon. Friends—that there are considerable dangers in linking together in unholy wedlock those who do and those who do not accept the system itself.
On the other side of the argument there are those who, equally rightly, say "Yes, but the first-past-the-post system might produce an SNP majority that has been thrown up by only a minority—perhaps not much more than one-third of the voting electorate." "How much greater then" says that side of the argument "the danger to which we are exposed under the Bill by the existence and the ambitions of the SN Punless we draw its teeth, unless we reduce it to probable coalition status by introducing proportional representation."
I believe that the fears of both sides to the argument are justified, but that the action which they propose is not proportionate to the real danger with which we are threatened. That danger is the danger that is implicit in the Bill itself, in what the Bill proposes to do, and in the way in which it proposes to do it.
Here again I am exactly on the same ground as the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire who doubted—and I share his doubt—whether any of these remedies will remove those reasons for which nearly half the House is committed against the principle of the Bill. If the SNP did not exist, and if we nevertheless proceeded in obedience to the theory that Scotland is a nation requiring separate directly-elected legislative representation, we should still be incurring essentially the same dangers, namely by creating a Dutch auction in which the winners would always be those who proposed and pressed further developments that would lead to a continuous loosening of the Union and would focus all the discontents in that part of the kingdom not upon their true and real causes, but upon the supposed deficiencies of the system of devolution.

4.30 p.m.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: If the fruits of victory for the promise of Home Rule are as great as the right hon. Gentleman says, how does he explain the extraordinary turnabout on the part of the Labour Party, which was committed to Home Rule as late as 1957, yet at that time, when it was clear that

the Scottish National Party was coming into a considerable degree of influence, chose to give up this policy?

Mr. Powell: There are all sorts of educational forces which operate on the minds of Members of this House. One of the educational forces is a consideration of electoral consequences; but another and perhaps equally respectable educational force is the necessity for debating alternatives to our present situation and doing so with the thoroughness which the procedures of this House, properly used. make possible. I believe that both of those contributed to the conversion.
I do not think that the danger in this Bill lies in the coalition between a Labour group and a Scottish National group in the new Scottish Assembly, nor do I believe it lies in the possibility that a 35 per cent. vote for the SNP could produce a clear majority in the Assembly; for if it is not the general and preponderant will of the people of Scotland to be separate from the rest of the United Kingdom, then neither via a coalition nor via a majority in the Assembly dealing with the subjects devolved to this one will Scotland be taken out of the kingdom.
The danger to the Union which we have seen from the beginning lies not in the form of election, nor can it be cured by altering the form of the election. It lies in the consequences, by the nature of things, of attempting to set up a directly-elected legislative Assembly for a part of a unitary parliamentary State. As so often, the proposal before us in the amendments—the debate on which has been and will remain valuable—is, in the last resort, an attempt to evade the essential question which the Bill throws up and on which, so far, this House has been taking the wrong decision.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I should like to follow the speech of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in respect of three points that he made. I respect the views that he expressed on Second Reading on the need to continue the unitary State and that anything which threatens that threatens the United Kingdom as a whole, although those views do not coincide with my own. I do not believe that by continuing the unitary State exactly as it is one necessarily protects the United Kingdom as a whole.
I should like to follow three of the right hon. Gentleman's assumptions on which he based his opposition to changes in the electoral system. I am wholly at one with him in one important respect, namely, that in this House or in any form of Assembly the identity of a Member elected by a specific area and community is one of the traditions of the British political system which I should be extremely reluctant to give up. It is an identity which the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) specifically retains. This is preferable to the proposed single transferable vote system proposed by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) which would create multi-Member constituencies.
The amendment of the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian retains the single-Member constituency, which means that the Member is totally answerable and is the only individual answerable to those who elect him to the Assembly. I support the amendment because it retains that identity of interest with the community from which the Member is elected. I do not think that there would be any confusion about the answerability of the elected Member to the community which elected him, or any confusion—as there might be in a multi-Member constituency—about the Member to whom an elector wishing to make representations could go. The amendment does not break the ties of the community, which are so essential.
The second point on which I differ from the right hon. Member for Down, South is that I do not believe that he fully answered the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) concerning the fact that in the British Parliament there is a large non-elected element that has to be taken into account. I refer again to the speech that my hon. Friend the Member for Pentlands made yesterday. He is the only Member to have pointed out that in the Scottish Assembly we shall have a unicameral system, where there will be only one chamber, whereas in the United Kingdom Parliament we have two, one elected and one non-elected. The non-elected part—it is a matter of opinion whether it works for better or worse—is there to provide a check on

the actions of the other chamber. I strongly support the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Pentlands. When we are introducing this innovation—and the whole idea of an Assembly is an innovation—I do not believe that we are necessarily breaching any principles underlying the electoral system. Under this amendment a certain proportion of the Members elected to that Assembly would not be representative of the communities which carry out the elections. I think that is a point which the right hon. Gentleman should take into account.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: With this innovation, would the hon. Gentleman go into coalition with Labour or the SNP?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I shall go into that question in a moment, if the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will hold his patience.
I turn to the third point that the right hon. Member for Down, South made, which underlies many of the speeches in the debate. Of course it is right that we should look at any new electoral system on its merits. One thing that marked many speeches was that—with respect to some hon. Members who have spoken—I felt that, to some extent, the approach to a new electoral system was coloured by the judgment of individual Members of what the outcome will be in party political terms. That is wrong. We must approach this on its merits and as a matter of principle.
One argument that has been used throughout the debate—the right hon. Member for Down, South used it in passing—concerns what will be the actions and influence in an Assembly elected by proportional representation of the one group that is dedicated to separating Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom. That argument has coloured many of the comments during this debate. There is a point that has not been made and which must be made. I am dealing entirely with the practicalities and not the principles, and I hope that I can put at rest the fears of some hon. Members who approach the establishment of a Scottish Assembly in a pragmatic way and fear what it may lead to. If opinion in Scotland is as I judge it to be, and as it has been expressed in opinion polls,


the majority of people in Scotland are opposed to separation.
In the circumstances of a Scottish Assembly devolved from the United Kingdom dealing with Scottish domestic affairs, it is only fair to ask whether—the SNP approach when the time comes will be interesting—a party dedicated to the separation of Scotland from the United Kingdom will get the same electoral support as it gets now in elections to the United Kingdom Parliament. It is plain that the majority of people are against separation and that a party dedicated to separation will therefore not get electoral support for that very reason. I believe that we shall see a far greater polarisation back to the other parties, whether they be Socialist, Conservative, Liberal, Scottish Labour or whatever variations we may have. I believe that the rôle of a separatist party in the Scottish Assembly, having achieved that measure of devolution, will change dramatically from that which the Scottish National Party sees itself playing now.
I believe that there are counter-arguments to the argument put forward by the right hon. Member for Down, South both on the principle of the proportional representational system and on the practical results that may flow from it.

Mr. Iain Sproat: Surely my hon. Friend is missing the nub of the argument that those opposed to setting up the Assembly have put forward. The nub of the argument is not that the majority of people in Scotland are currently opposed to separation. We are afraid that if we set up a Scottish Assembly such discontents will arise, which have not yet arisen, as will promote the feeling towards separation. That is what most of us fear. We are talking not about the 5 per cent. in favour of separation but of those who will move towards it because of the problems that will arise from any separate Assembly.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I respect my hon. Friend's views, but I disagree with him. I believe that the balance of danger to the unity of the United Kingdom is greater by doing nothing.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said that it was important to view the amendment on its merits, not to mix up different motives

for it. Approaching the amendment in an honest way, I believe that we must accept that the proposed Assembly will be set up. Therefore, whether one is for or against the Assembly, one should consider the amendment on the basis whether a first-past-the-post or a proportional representational system is the best answer. I suggest that is the more honest basis on which to approach the amendment.
I believe that the honestly felt fears expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) are more likely to be realised under a first-past-the-post system than under a PR system. Under the first-past-the-post system, as the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian said yesterday, 36 per cent. or 37 per cent. of the votes in Scotland would give one party more than 50 per cent. of the seats.

Mr. Nick Budgen: If my lion. Friend is putting the matter in party terms, perhaps I may put this proposition to him. If the Assembly is set up and he is right in saying that that will in the short-term lead to a substantial reduction in the SNP vote and we shall therefore see a consolidation of Labour and Conservative support in Scotland, is there not a risk that the controlling party, whether it be Conservative or Labour, will tend to blame the limited powers for its difficulties in Scotland? That may be an attractive argument to the supporters of those two parties, hut it may also lead others to the conclusion that the instability of the Assembly constitution is such that they have the choice either to dispose of the Assembly and come hack to a United Kingdom Parliament or to see the re-emergence of the SNP when the logic of its argument for separation is presented to them.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: If the Assembly is unworkable because it has inadequate powers, that kind of situation could occur. I have said this before. That is why we have a marginally better Bill this time than we had before. The Bill now contains a clearer division of powers. I shall hope to move amendments on this matter later.
It is important that the Assembly he given powers which will make it more


realistic and workable and reduce the risk of conflict. There are certain seeds of conflict in the Bill. I am glad we have the Committee stage, because it gives us the opportunity to try to improve the Assembly so that the kind of situation envisaged by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) will not arise.
I turn now to the practical point made by the hon. Member for West Lothian. I shall not go into the argument on principle. The question comes down to one of the workability of the system under proportional representation. As the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian freely acknowledged, based on the 1974 election figures, on the PR approach no single party would have an overall majority. Whichever party is to form the Executive will have to depend on the support of other parties within the Assembly. That is not an unthinkable type of situation. Indeed, it is the situation that we have in the House of Commons today. Yet the Government have now governed for more than three years. I believe that increasingly within the United Kingdom we may have to deal with that kind of situation in purely practical terms. It certainly has not prevented the Government from continuing in office.

Mr. Dalyell: Fundamentally.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The fundamental mistake made by the hon. Gentleman in his approach is seeing any coalition in the Scottish Assembly on too formal a basis. In many countries with proportional representational systems where Governments are formed by parties which are not majority parties, coalitions exist, but often in a very informal way. That imposes a discipline on the party forming the Government and on the other parties in an election when putting forward their programmes. They tend to put forward programmes which are likely to command the majority of moderate support within the electorate. I believe that much the same kind of thing will happen in Scotland.
I differ from the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), whose opposition to the idea of a PR system seemed to be on the basis that it would hinder the carrying into effect of some of the more ideological purposes that he felt

he could achieve rather better by a first-past-the-post system. I believe in having a system which recognises the reality of what the voters in general wish to have.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman point to any coalition overseas in which one of the coalition parties has as its raison d'être the break-up of the State? That is the fundamental difference between the Lib-Lab pact, any overseas coalition and, on the other hand, the situation in a Scottish Assembly. There are Members on the third Bench below the Gangway whose main plank is the hiving off of the State. That does not exist anywhere overseas in a coalition, as far as I am aware.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The situation that the hon. Member envisages will arise whether or not we have devolution. We shall have within the House of Commons as we have had in previous years, a party that is dedicated to the break up of the United Kingdom. If that party commands so much support in the electorate that it is able to work towards that end, that situation will arise here and in the Assembly. I am convinced that the majority of the people of Scotland do not want separation and that we shall see a withering of that extreme view in the Assembly.
The proportional representation system would prevent the expression of some of these extreme views. Those advocating separatism would be subjected to greater discipline under the proportional representation system than they would be under the first-past-the-post system.
As other hon. Members have said, the Bill gives us an opportunity to discuss changes other than those to the structure of government. We should see whether we can find a better electoral system. I believe that we can and that such a system is on the lines proposed by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian. For that reason I welcome the debate and I intend to support the amendment

Mrs. Margaret Bain: It is rather obvious when we listen to the opponents of the principle of proportional representation that the spectre of the SNP haunts them day and night. It is disturbing that hon. Members are not looking carefully at the principles involved in the amendment.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) did not surprise anyone on this Bench when he said that the reason he opposed the amendment was that it transfers the power to review the system to the Assembly itself. We are no surprised that the Conservatives take that view because they do not want an Assembly in Scotland at all. According to his remarks in Scotland the other day, the right hon. Gentleman became a one-day expert on Scottish affairs. He wants to set up a tartan inquisition under which he can question decisions made by the Assembly.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that he did not like to draw comparisons with other constitutions and other countries where the traditions of authority were slightly different. The traditions of authority in Scotland are different from those that are operated by this House. In Scotland we regard the people as sovereign. We say that the people should take the decisions and that we should not regard Westminster decisions as being the touchstone or gauge of political correctitude. I do not see how the right hon. Member for Down, South can support an Assembly for Northern Ireland and oppose one for Scotland.

Mr. Leon Britton: It is a ringing political nonsense to say that the people are sovereign in this context. We would be assisted if the hon. Lady explained exactly what "sovereign" means in terms of the practice and operation of an electoral system.

Mrs. Bain: I am disappointed that the deputy Shadow spokesman for devolution does not understand Scottish constitutional law enough to know that the people are sovereign.
Members of my party have no hesitation in supporting proportional representation. The consistency of the SNP on this issue is an example to others in the House. After all, ours is the party which, with a 5 per cent. swing from the October 1974 election, could well become the majority party in Scotland.
Some people take small delight in the recent trends shown in the polls. But we know the reality of the situation because we are grass-root politicians and we do not live in ivory towers. We should

like to fight a General Election as soon as possible.
When considering the amendment, the all-party group gave serious thought to the comments and criticisms that were made on the last occasion, during the February debate, on this principle. We realise that there are those who are particularly keen to see the contact between constituents and Members continued. That is why we opted for a system of alternative voting for 100 members of the Assembly. We recognise that an MP is of fundamental importance, since he is an identifiable person to whom people can go. Those of us who are involved in constituency work realise that the MP is becoming the person who can be approached. People are becoming confused by the plethora of bodies and organisations that now exist.
We also recognise that there is a general demand for proportional representation. As a democratic party we try to reflect that. I draw the attention of the House to the Opinion Research Centre survey carried out in February and March this year. That found that 74 per cent. of the electorate wish to see the principle of proportional representation brought into operation. Of that 74 per cent., the vast majority—55 per cent.—said that they would still favour PR even if it were to the disadvantage of their own party. We should bear that in mind.
Why does the public want proportional representation? It is because many people feel that they are disenfrancised because their party is not represented in a particular area or because it is underrepresented in the House of Commons, as it could be in the Scottish Assembly.
I was elected on a very small majority of 22. Under a PR system I have no doubt that my majority would be much larger. The people who did not vote for me feel that their parties are not adequately represented. Some of them do not contact me because I am a member of the SNP. But we wish to make contact with people who belong to other parties.
The 50 Members to be appointed under the topping-up system ensures that there is a balance—

Mr. Dalyell: It would give a false impression to say that people of other loyalties do not contact their Members


of Parliament in Scotland. Many members of the hon. Lady's party come to me to discuss business which is unrelated to party politics, and they are welcome.

Mrs. Bain: Although only a small minority do not contact their constituency MP because of party loyalties, a considerably number do take that attitude. I share my area with three councillors. Letters are passed between us because people tend to write according to political loyalties. We sort this out at a local level. The situation cannot be ignored.

5.0 p.m.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): As I understood the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) it was that the added Members would not undertake constituency responsibilities and he predicted that Ministers would not answer letters from them. The hon. Lady seems to be suggesting that an SNP supporter, for example, would go to the added Member rather than to his Labour Member of Parliament We cannot have it both ways. Is she agreeing or disagreeing with the concept of the added-Member system put forward by my hon. Friend?

Mrs. Bain: Our view is that this is a first step towards the Assembly itself trying to evolve a system that would be more equitable. The rôle of the topped-up Member is a difficult one to define. But under the circumstances there is a possibility for negotiation between the constituency Members and the non-constituency Members of the Assembly to work out their own philosophy.
The topping-up system is referred to today in what is called Scotland's national newspaper, the Daily Record. Opposite a headline which says: "Crazy night in the House" there is another stating "Facing up to topping-up". There is an editorial which asks this House to consider carefully the proposition that has been put forward by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) and his colleagues in all parties. That editorial states:
Whether we like it or not, Britain will eventually have to fall into line with the rest of Europe … and face up to a new voting system.

It seems rather strange that many hon. Members who will vote for direct elections to Europe on a PR basis will not be going into the Lobby tonight to support the concept of an Assembly being elected on a proportional basis. The Daily Record continues:
the ASSEMBLY elections would be the ideal test bed. That is where new constitutional ideas will be discussed … and take place.
It would make sense to start preparing for the great constitutional change here—in Scotland.
One of the reasons we want to see PR coming with this constitutional change is that there are very genuine fears among people in Scotland about being dominated by what we in industrial Scotland call "the Labour Mafia". Some of my colleagues who represent rural constituencies have had these fears portrayed to them. Likewise, those of us who represent more industrial seats are concerned when people tell us, "Perhaps we may be dominated by fishing, farming and forestry Members." By having a PR system in the Assembly, we can ensure that all views in Scotland are represented and we can get away from the kind of ideological clashes which have held back so much work in this House.
I have listened with great interest to hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor)—who, again, is not present—and the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) talk about dictation by the minority. When I was on a radio programme with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart he referred again to this. It seems to me that those hon. Members are saying, "It is all right to impose our views on other people". That is the kind of despotism envisaged by such hon. Members, and it is not benevolent despotism. We want to get away from the situation whereby the minority can dictate, because that is what has held back decent legislation in this House for decades.

Mr. Norman Buchan: The hon. Lady has not understood the proposition put forward nor the argument against it. The proposition put forward is that the disfranchising of many people can be substituted for by having a party list. In other words, we would be institutionalising the party factor in our system. It exists now but we would be institutionalising it.
The problem is that people who go to Members of their own party vote for a party because they expect that party to pursue a particular policy. If we institutionalise and emphasise this party aspect and at the same time produce a system—[Hon. Members: "Too long."]—there have been longer interventions—whereby that party policy cannot permanently or ever be carried out because we have a permanently hung situation, then people will begin to ignore parties. When they begin to ignore parties they will seek policies in other directions which are outside this House.

Hon. Members: Sit down.

The Chairman: Order.

Mr. Buchan: On a point of order—

The Chairman: Order. If the hon. Gentleman catches the eye of the Chair he will have the opportunity of making his own speech. He must not attempt to do so by means of an intervention in the hon. Lady's speech.

Mrs. Bain: In response to that intervention I would say that if we were to institutionalise the party system through a system of PR then at least it would be supported by the majority of the people, and that does not happen at the moment. Secondly, it is not always the case that the first-past-the-post system produces a clear majority. In fact, in the first Assembly elections the governing party will have to take into account the views of minority parties. Under the first-past-the-post system many of the best men have not been elected or returned to the House, as the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West well knows. Six British Prime Ministers lost their seats under the first-past-the-post system and since 1918 the Liberals have four times lost their leader by electoral defeat.
If we look at the United Kingdom system, 49·2 per cent. of the people elected all 635 MPs and 50·8 per cent. elected none. But in Scotland the situation is even worse because only 43·9 per cent. of the people elected all 71 MPs while 56·1 per cent. elected none. Those were the figures for the October 1974 election.
These people do not feel able to approach some of their MPs because of different beliefs. But if we are to provide stable government we must say

exactly what we mean. We should not talk about a situation where it means the ability of a government to steamroller their views through on an unwilling majority. We must have a situation where a government has the support of the majority of the people.
I know that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) regards it as a fate worse than death even to speak to an SNP Member in Scotland, but I rather doubt that he means that. However unpalatable the concept of coalition may seem, it will be the situation in the new Assembly. We must also look at the possibility of the Tories and the Labour Party combining. We know that they are both Unionist parties. But if we have a situation where in Germany there is a grand coalition of the CDU and the Social Democrats, why cannot the Scots have a coalition?
We do not accept the political party as being of supreme importance. That is what the hon. Member for West Lothian has consistently argued in terms of his opposition to PR.
There is also the question of what the 50 topped-up Members would do with their time in the Assembly. If we are all perfectly honest, we could all have plenty of work for 50 Members who are not laden down with constituency paperwork. It is one of my great misfortunes not to have been able to attend many of the all-party groups and, in order to get to know their problems, to listen to the private groups which come to this House. Those 50 Members could become experts in areas such as widows' taxation and one-parent families. They could be of great assistance to the constituency Member in terms of feeding information to him.
Those hon. Members who support the amendment tonight will be voting for a principle of supreme importance. Anyone who opposes the concept will be seen as rejecting a new principle in Scotland which would bring a real constitutional change and a real change of government to the people.

Mr. Dalyell: Before the hon. Lady sits down, may I say that it is not that I think talking to Scottish nationalists is a fate worse than death? It is that I do not want the SNP, via devolution, to string us along to a separate State on a road on which we do not want to go.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady has resumed her seat.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: I continue to find it odd to hear so sincere and honest men who are deeply attached to our system of democracy hold so fast to the opinion that it is an essential ingredient of our democratic process that our elections should to some extent be rigged.
It is, of course, the maxim of any ruling class that elections should be managed in a way favourable to that class. In the past that was done by the nobility and by the monied classes. Now the great barons of the TUC exert themselves in the same way.
We should not approve. We very much disapprove of the voting in a dictatorship, yet for ourselves we insist on a system that is likely to distort the wishes of the electorate. I said "likely", but I should have said "virtually certain", because not since 1900 has a party Government in this country commanded a majority of the votes of the people.
What makes our devotion to an outworn system of voting so strange is that the objective of a managed election—one that turns out as one wants it to—is not attained. In fact, the results of the first-past-the-post elections are highly unpredictable. I am reminded of the compulsive gambler who every evening goes down to the tables convinced that he will win. The odds against him are sure in the end, and in the long term he is on a hiding to nothing.
In seeking a system of proportional representation for the Assembly in Scotland I bear in mind that with a two-party system, first-past-the-post is the most exactly proportional method that can be achieved. That is why proportional representation for Ulster should not cause the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) to attack proportional representation as such. As he said, it was brought in there for power sharing and not for proportionality. After all, everyone in Northern Ireland knows on which side of the fence he will come down in the end, so the system was immaterial to that. Anyway the right hon. Gentleman finished today by saying that he did not think it mattered much what the system of voting was, so I hope that in future he will not regard proportional representation with quite so frosty a glare.
Where there are more than two parties it is increasingly likely that a minority of votes will secure the majority of seats. This has several consequences. First, I believe that it weakens the authority of Government. Every time the Prime Minister of the day goes on television to exhort us to work harder or to strike less, or uses the various Dunkirkisms with which we have become familiar over the years, we should reflect that 60 per cent. of those watching him voted against him at the last General Election and that probably by the time they see him on television exhorting them to do better 80 per cent. of them wish that he would drop dead. That must somewhat reduce the power of his appeal.
As ideologies drift apart, we have violent changes in policy which are harmful and unsettling to the national life. In Scotland—which is, if I may say so, inhabited by a disputatious people—I believe that the situation will be even worse. Added to the ordinary conflict between Conservatives and Socialist there will be a conflict between each of those parties and the SNP. Under the present first-past-the-post system, we should probably see large swings in representation in the Assembly every four years, perhaps leading to vast changes with policies being wrenched back and forth over a period, resulting in the dismay and eventual disgust of the population. Nothing I have said is designed to deny a party which obtains over 50 per cent. of the vote the right to its majority. What I say is that a minority in the country should not have a majority in the Assembly.
5.15 p.m.
An additional reason for a proportional representation system in Scotland is the one mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind)—the absence of any proper constitutional safeguards in the Bill. In Scotland there will not even be the feeble protection of the House of Lords that we have here. One vote in the Assembly could bring it into conflict with Her Majesty's Government in Westminster, with no certainty or agreement about what the popular opinion is. It is noticeable that systems with no constitutional safeguards have a very correct and exact system of proportional representation. Examples are to be seen in Scandinavia and Israel.
Implicit in what I have said is that I believe that voters are averse to changes as violent as their elected representatives sometimes contrive to thrust upon them. Therefore, there is much support for proportional representation from those who wish to prevent an extremist faction blessed with unexpected electoral fortune from running away with the spoons.
Various criticisms are made of proportional representation schemes. The first to be voiced in the Committee was that PR was too complicated. It is extraordinary that that argument should still be advanced. How can anyone imagine that having to put two crosses, one for the person and one for the party, on a ballot paper should be too complicated for the voter in the United Kingdom, a country whose favourite sport is filling in football coupons every week? Local elections are more complicated than that, even for the parish. Every other country with PR manages perfectly well. That includes Ireland, with possibly the most complicated system of all. That the proposition that the system is complicated can seriously be advanced at this stage of the debate shows that hostility to proportional representation is all too often founded upon misapprehension and prejudice. It also explains why PR always wins the argument.
It is said that we shall have weak government, with no majority for one party, under a PR system. That depends what is meant by "weak government". If it means a Government whose men and measures are constantly changed, we have it now. We have had more changes of Ministers let alone of policies than any analogue country in Europe, with the possible exception of Italy. Today we are inured to four Budgets a year, leading to the confusion and disruption of our affairs.
It is also said that coalition Governments will be the norm. Some of my hon. Friends quote the only person that anybody in the Tory Party ever quotes—Disraeli—as saying that England does not love coalitions. We have one now, under our present system, and it is one that was not put fully and fairly before the electorate but was hastily cobbled together as a life raft by two old sailors—well, one old sailor and one rather young sailor—preparing to stab each other in the back if either should ever

return to terra firma. In any event, coalitions are not inevitable. Sweden and Israel have had years of one-party government.
One point in favour of coalitions under a PR system is that it is much easier for Back Benchers to oppose their Government without the danger of provoking a General Election, with all the bizarre and unexpected results that the first-past-the-post system constantly brings. Even if one opposes one's Government and the consequence is a General Election, the result is far more predictable, because the system is much more sensible. Finally, if the consequence of PR is a constant coalition, but if the people constantly vote for that, why should we in this House or in the Assembly deny what they have voted for?
It is said that we should have a great proliferation of parties. We have it now under the present system. It can easily be prevented in PR systems by the 5 per cent. threshold that we have incorporated in the amendment.
It is very difficult to get an existing House such as ours to agree to reform itself. Many a colleague—I shall not reveal who—has told me "I believe that your system is better, but I might lose my seat", and so they do not vote for it. But the position in Scotland is different, because the Assembly there will start with a clean sheet, with an opportunity to do good without having to tread on people's toes.
The proposed system preserves the relationship between the Member of Parliament and his constituency. We have heard a number of hon. Members denigrate the list system today, but it has its merits. In the first place it provides experts. In the Conservative Party we lack, to some extent, mining experts; in the Labour Part there is a lack, to some extent, of anyone who knows anything about farming; in the SNP there is lack of experts. This is where we would be able to enlist men who would command some kind of respect because of their particular knowledge. In relation to the controversy mentioned by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) about who goes to which MP, I think that we could draw a distinction between personal cases going to the local


MP and political cases going to the added Members, without any impropriety.
If we had PR for Scotland it is claimed that this would be the thin end of the wedge for Westminster. I do not see why. We have proportional representation in Northern Ireland and that is not the thin end of the wedge—in fact it has not made the slightest impression on Westminster so far.
The Government recognise that in this matter we should have horses for courses, and they are proposing for Europe the sort of proposals outlined in this amendment to the Scotland Bill. If it is found to be good after an experiment, we need not fear if we are bitten by that dog, just as long as it is not a mad one. Maybe it would make us get on with the job a bit better.

Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I do not want to embarrass you by moving the closure once again, but I wondered whether you had given any indication when the vote will or will not come. I stress the word "indication" as this is not very strong, and wonder whether there might be some indication of the time before which the vote might not come.

The Chairman: The hon. Member asks me a question in the form of a double negative. I can only reply that I have to use my own discretion and my discretion is exercised by the number of hon. Members who are still seeking to catch my eye. I have no knowledge, official or otherwise, of when we may come to the time for the vote.

Mr. George Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. I am not asking whether an indication has been given by others in the Chamber but whether an indication has been agreed to or given by the Chair, because I do not want to embarrass you by going against those indications, if you have given any.

The Chairman: I assure the hon. Member that I have given no indications whatever. As I said before, I have to use my own discretion in the light of the circumstances prevailing and the number of hon. Members desiring to speak.

Mr. George Cunningham: Mr. George Cunningham
rose in his place and claimed to move, That the

Question be now put; but THE CHAIRMAN withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. Charles Morrison: My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) made an excellent case for the use of proportional representation in the Scottish Assembly and, for that matter, in this House as well. I would be prepared to disagree with him, and agree instead with the view put forward by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) were it not that the right hon. Member has forgotten one thing. He takes great pride in our House of Commons, but whatever pride we take in this place, the electorate and the general public outside view the results produced by the House of Commons in recent years as by no stretch of the imagination meeting the desires or justifiable requirements of the people. Therefore, whatever the merits of the first-past-the-post system, I cannot go along with what the right hon. Gentleman said. If he does not believe that the electorate, at least in one part of the country, are dissatisfied with our system, all he has to do is to cast an eye on the Benches in front of him to see one practical demonstration of the dissatisfaction that exists.
I do not think that the electoral system can be divided from the original cause of this Bill. We have been told time and time again that the Scots are dissatisfied with London government and the decisions of this House, that we do not adequately reflect the views and opinions of Scotland and that government is inevitably remote.
On the other hand, government feels remote only because people in Scotland are dissatisfied with it. If government was more satisfactory and met the justifiable desires of the public, I doubt whether anyone but a few would be worrying about remoteness. Because of growing dissatisfaction, so the argument goes. Scotland must have its own Assembly and government up to a point, and then, to some extent, the feeling of remoteness will be removed.
However, the sense of dissatisfaction and disillusion will remain unless the new institution can govern more in accordance with the desires of the Scottish people. Perhaps the major ingredient in the cause


of the feeling of remoteness and dissatisfaction in Scotland is the first-past-the-post system, since it is the parent of the Parliament about which the Scots have become so critical.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said, if we have a first-past-the-post system in Scotland all the consequences of it will remain. The hon. Member for Renfrew-shire, West (Mr. Buchan)—I am sorry he is not here—said yesterday that he wants the first-past-the-post system because he believes that it is the best vehicle by which we can change society, whereas proportional representation is merely a vehicle for managing it. I cannot see that that view has much relationship to the idea of government by the people. On the other hand, he may be right and it may be that the first-past-the-post system is a better vehicle for changing society.
I am not opposed to change, but change will not resolve the continuing dissatisfaction unless it is change that the majority want. Our arrival in this House by means of the first-past-the-post system emphasises the points that the hon. Member made. No one can claim from outside—let alone from inside this House—that we do not make changes and set about changing society. But it would be a brave man who claimed that we did so to the satisfaction of all but a few of the electorate. Because of this a great number of the changes that we make are no more than ephemeral. There is growing confusion among the electorate about the changes that we make. Because of the constant changes, our economy, more often than not, is in a muddle. There is a grave danger that if the first-past-the-post system is used for Scotland there will be no shortage of change, but it will not be change that the people want, and it will cause continuing dissatisfaction. What will happen then? Shall we have further devolution down to the regions or to district council level, or shall we have revolution?
On the other hand, I do not accept that PR is merely a vehicle for managing society. It is capable of promoting change provided that a clear majority has voted for one party, or if it has not, or if there is a coalition that can produce a consensus, that consensus should be a reasonable reflection of majority public opinion.
I believe that PR will produce an Assembly which is able much more accurately to reflect the views of the public, and to act accordingly. It will promote change which is generally supported, and will veto it when it is opposed. It will not promote change in society at the whim of a few and contrary to the desire of the many. This seems all the more important in Scotland where there are so many parties—and parties within parties. In that situation, regardless of what are considered to be the merits of first-past-the-post elsewhere, a much more refined electoral system is needed, and it can be provided only by PR.
5.30 p.m.
I wish to make two further points, one of them in response to the view expressed by some that the introduction of PR in Scotland would be the thin end of the wedge. Perhaps it would be the thin end of the wedge, and indeed it will be if PR proves to be a more effective system. Those who are against PR and who argue that it is without doubt the thin end of the wedge, to my mind show a considerable lack of faith in the ability of first past the post to prove itself the better when the two systems are compared in practice. If there were real confidence in the first-past-the-post system, I believe that those who are opposed to PR should welcome it in the belief that it would produce poor results, that soon there would be a demand that the first-past-the-post system should be introduced in Scotland and that the apparent merits of PR would quickly prove a sham. But the opponents of PR do not so argue, and thus demonstrate the weakness of their opposition.
Finally, I wish to refer to the view expressed that PR or any variety of it would be too complicated for the electorate to understand. I cannot accept the view that the British people, and the Scots in particular, have less ability to understand the electoral system than do the Irish, French or Germans or electorates in other parts of the world.
I hope that when the Committee has an opportunity in the not-too-distant future, it will decide to take its courage in its hands and to introduce a system of PR in Scotland as set out in the amendment, which I believe will be to the advantage of the Scots and will be a test case in relation to the theoretical benefits of


first past the post or proportional representation.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: It is necessary to express a dislike of this Bill at the outset of discussion on this amendment because sometimes the argument is used against an amendment, or indeed for it, that it has a deleterious effect on something that somebody does not want in any case. I believe that the Bill was thought to be politically expedient based on a mis-analysis of the situation in Scotland, as my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) said.
Having said that, I follow the principles enunciated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) and the opening remarks of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). But I wish to question one of the right hon. Gentleman's subsequent remarks which somewhat biased his arguments thereafter. It concerned his definition of the name of our House. He made the point—and I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not there at the moment—that the name of the House of Commons arose from the representation of communes or communities rather than of the common people or commoners.
Historically, as always, the right hon. Gentleman was right in that in the thirteenth century the House of Lords and the knights represented communities or communes. This is harking back to the time before the separation of the House of Lords from the House of Commons, and it was not until after the so-called Model Parliament of 1295 that the Parliament included in its ranks even the lower clergy. Once the Houses had separated, the Commons from the Lords, it was the first stage towards the House of Commons becoming truly a representative and legislative assembly rather than an instrument for raising finance for the Executive.
Ever since then successive monarchs have tried to get round the House of Commons, and certainly the Cabinet Executive is seeking to do the same now by the use of the guillotine in this debate. Evolution has taken place and we are now discussing another step of evolution. That evolution is now not particularly attractive, but let us not stumble over an unattractive evolutionary step by making

it even worse in practice, if it is passed into practice, than it needs to be.
Here we come to the question of what the practice in elections should be rather than, as the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said in his speech, a conjecture about the liaisons that might or might not arise following one sort of electoral system or another.
The hon. Gentleman added a rather personal analysis of what might happen by the first-past-the-post system. I thought it was an idiosyncratic analysis to say that, under the PR system, there could be misrepresentation of people's views and therefore an overwhelming SNP representation in the Scottish Assembly, whereas it is much more likely that there would be less representation and an overwhelming number of Scottish nationalists within the Scottish Assembly under a first-past-the-post system. The truth of the matter is that we do not choose an electoral system on any one person's conjecture on what the outcome may be. One does not choose the form of wedding service on the basis of the ugliness or attractiveness of bride and groom. I believe that this debate has often gone off the rails because of that factor.
We are debating the rules of the election. I wish to suggest two yardsticks that should be applied to the rules for election to the Scottish Assembly. Should the argument not centre on choosing the system that will most accurately reflect the political opinions of people in Scotland? That should be the first rule.
The second is that the system should be suitable to the multi-party system which we now have in this country nationally and equally in Scotland. The first-past-the-post system worked reasonably well although it did not work as well as some people liked to think it worked when we had two major parties We still had misrule or misrepresentation of majorities even when there were only two parties to choose from. In a multi party system, the first-past-the-post system is obviously lacking.
Another way in which the debate has gone off the rails is in having concentrated on the creation of an electoral system that would lead to the election of an Assembly in Scotland that would have sufficient power to get things done. I put forward the proposition that that would be contrary to the best operation of the Scottish


Assembly. If we look for a parallel here at Westminster we see a Government who have ridden into power with a minority and thereafter have tended ruthlessly to ignore minority feelings—whether those of the major opposition party, the Conservatives, the minorities in the minor opposition parties or, indeed, even the smallest minority of all, which is made up of some of their own Back Benchers. The fact that the Government have been in a position where they can force through legislation has not helped one jot to solve our national problems. If a Scottish Assembly were given similar powers that would not do one jot to help Scottish problems either. It is no use demanding a strong Government unless there is reasonable agreement in Scotland about what should be done and the direction in which to go. One has only to listen to the arguments put forward by the Scottish National Party to understand that there is not now that cohesion of direction.
I had hoped that today theory would give way to reality, because that must happen. I regret that the Liberal Benches have been so empty and the Liberal contribution to the debate so mediocre—with the exception of that made by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston). Even though proportional representation is one of the major points or principle contained in the Lib-Lab pact, it is extraordinary that the Liberal Benches are so empty.
If the Government put through this ridiculous measure, then—whatever the eventual powers of the Assembly may be and whatever the advisability of giving it any powers at all—the Scottish people will have the right, and should have the power, to cast a democratic vote for those they want to represent them in the new Assembly and, through the Assembly, in the new Executive. Only by supporting the amendment can we be sure that a sensible Assembly may be elected in Scotland by a sensible majority of sensible Scottish people. That is the essence of democratic choice. Is it correct for the Mother of Parliaments to diverge from that principle? I therefore suggest to the House that the amendment should be supported.

Mr. George Cunningham: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put; but The CHAIRMAN

withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. George Gardiner: I shall not attempt to comment in detail on the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) because time is rather short. Nor shall I attempt to embroider upon the excellent argument put by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) earlier. My purpose is solely to put to the House a simple and practical appeal that in this discussion we should spare a thought for our poor harrassed electors.
Let us now consider the prospect looming before the Scottish voter. If the Government get their way and the Bill proceeds through all its parliamentary stages, there will be a referendum in which the Scottish voter will be called out to record his opinion on whether the provisions of the Act—as it will then be—should take effect. If the Government and the Scottish National Party, in their alliance, succeed in persuading the Scottish voter that that should be so, then at some time next year he will be called out again to vote in elections to determine the Members of a Scottish Assembly.
5.45 p.m.
I also want to refer to other legislation that, I suggest, has a direct bearing on what we are now discussing. There are now before the House the Government's legislative proposals that we should, at some unspecified date, vote to elect directly representatives in a European Assembly. The target date of May or June of next year has been mentioned, although I doubt that many people now take that seriously. There is, nevertheless, the prospect of direct elections in the autumn of next year or the Spring of 1979. Therefore, at some stage, the Scottish elector will be invited to turn out to vote for the elections in the European Assembly.
There is also at least a reasonable likelihood that next autumn the elector will be invited to turn out in a General Election. I agree that that is not a certainty, but we have the Prime Minister's word that if there is not a General Election next year there will be one the year after. The Prime Minister has certainly given that pledge and I doubt that he will have any difficulty in


keeping it. Therefore at some stage during the next two years the Scottish elector will be invited out to join in a General Election. We must also consider that within that period he will be invited along to the polling booths to cast his vote in local elections.
If there is any Scottish elector who does not now know by heart every step of the road between his home and the polling booth he will certainly do so by the time this great circus is finished. If, by any chance, on his periodic journeys the elector were to reel with giddiness, a knock-out blow would come if on his arrival at the booth he was invited on successive occasions to vote according to totally different electoral systems.
In the case of a General Election and local elections he would be invited to vote according to the system that is familiar to him and that has sustained democracy in this country and the United States of America for a great number of years. It is the system that embodies the principle that the candidate who succeeds in persuading the largest number of electors to vote for him is the one who wins. According to legislation that the Government have put before us—discussion of which we shall embark on tomorrow—there will be totally different electoral system in the elections for the European Assembly. The elector will be asked to vote on a regional list system for multi-Member constituencies on a variant of the proportional representation system. It is proposed that in a succession of elections there will be at least two totally different systems of election.
According to this amendment yet another system would face the Scottish elector upon his arrival at the polling booth to vote for representatives in a Scottish Assembly. The system would mean having local representatives topped up by others to ensure that party strengths were reflected with greater accuracy.

Mr. Charles Morrison: Is not my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) over-simplifying the present situation because, at least in local government, there are already multi-member constituencies and the electorate are perfectly capable of coping with that? It does so regularly. Why does my hon.

Friend think that the electorate is so stupid that it could not cope with a slightly different system for Europe and another for Scotland?

Mr. Gardiner: As my hon. Friend will discover from my subsequent remarks, I am not alleging any stupidity on the part of the electorate, and I readily accept his point that a system of multi-member constituencies exists in local government elections in certain parts of the country. But here are proposed two totally different PR systems, variants of the PR argument, plus the system with which we have all become familiar over a great many years.
My hon. Friend alleged that I was suggesting that the electorate was somewhat stupid in finding this possibly all a little confusing. We heard earlier from the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) a comparison with the Federal Republic of Germany. He asked the question which is often asked by the advocates of PR in one context and another, which is that if the citizens of one country find it easy to cope with, why should the British not do the same? I am sure that the British could cope with it, but I must take the comparison further. The citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany are not being asked to vote on totally different systems in successive elections. This is one of the most unfortunate consequences that would arise if the Committee accepted the amendment before us.
I readily accept that many of those supporting this amendment argue perfectly sincerely for proportional representation for all kinds of different bodies, including this House. I can readily say that there would be great validity in having some kind of common system for election to all the institutions to which we have referred. But with this argument for PR a peculiar kind of case is presented. The tendency is to say that although they are in favour of a system of PR for all those institutions, it is nevertheless especially appropriate to the one we are discussing at the moment. So we hear the argument that the system of PR suggested in the amendment would be particularly appropriate to a totally new body such as the Scottish Assembly. No doubt tomorrow in the Second Reading debate on the European Assembly Elections Bill and in the Committee stage of that Bill


we shall also hear the argument that the PR system proposed for it is again uniquely suitable for direct elections to the European Assembly.
I suggest that that argument would acquire greater credibility if its proponents could at least fasten on one system of PR which they might advocate universally for all these different bodies.

Mr. Rathbone: One of the reasons for choosing this form of PR for Scotland has been its absolute simplicity. Even those hon. Members who come from the other end of the kingdom might like to be reassured about the simplicity, because that is an argument that they have used when dealing with the difficulties and complications of it in articles they have written for newspapers and in speeches they have made elsewhere. The simplicity is that one puts one X against the candidate and one X against the party. I believe that the Scottish people could well manage that.

Mr. Gardiner: If this amendment should succeed, my hon. Friend will have to explain that to the voters in Scotland in the run-up to the elections there. If he gets his way in the context of direct elections to the European Assembly he will have to set about explaining different features in a totally different system applying to those elections as well. Thankfully, no one has to explain the simplicity of the system that we are all used to. The poor Scottish voter turning up at the polling booth on his regular visits will turn to the tellers at the door and say "What system are we on today?" It is the suggestion that we change the system from one election to another that I am opposing this afternoon.
If a democratic system is to work it must command popular understanding and support, and if we pass the amendment this afternoon we shall do that democracy to which we are accustomed in this country a gread deal of damage.

Mr. George Cunningham: Mr. George Cunningham
rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put, but The CHAIRMAN withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: There is one fundamental objection to

all forms of proportional representation—an objection that destroys the arguments so far advanced in favour of it. Proportional representation means representation of parties, not of individuals. In Europe, the two oldest parliamentary democracies, Britain and France, still believe in representation of individuals, whereas most sophisticated forms of PR are devised and enjoyed by those countries which have had the least experience of parliamentary democracy. There is something fundamentally mistaken in the whole approach of the protagonists of this idea.
The question is: who is being represented in this House? For the purposes of some people it might be parties and institutions, and that means corporate groups. The parties are large corporate groups and no doubt they are a useful device for working the parliamentary system, but they are not inherently representative, and in any event they are, by their nature, coalitions striving, if they do their jobs properly, to represent as many people as possible across the whole range of political opinion. So if we grant to corporate groups the right of representation in this House, why should we stop simply at political opinion? Why should not we say that women are unrepresented in this House and then go on to devise a system under which they get a preference, so that there will be more women in the House?
What about Englishmen? They are certainly unrepresented in the House. There are far more Scotsmen, Welshmen and Irishmen representing English constituencies than there are Englishmen representing parts of the United Kingdom other than England. So in the end, if we adopt the system of proportional representation we shall get what amounts to a corporate State—a State that may be fair as between groups but unfair as between individuals. The parties themselves do not adequately represent the nation, and this is especially so when one considers that PR, or any form of it, including the one embodied in the amendment, gives extra weight to the votes of some individuals at the expense of others, that is to say, those individuals who vote for the lowest-placed candidates.
Is it right, fair and democratic that in any particular situation the votes of any


of the electors should have more weight than the votes of others? That is how it would work out. If the PR system were utterly fair, the vote of every individual would have equal weight, and that would mean that the number of votes available to each elector would be according to the number of candidates. If one had to put candidates in order of preference, and if there were two candidates, one could allocate two votes for the first preference and one vote for the second.
6.0 p.m.
What is the position if there is a large number of candidates? If there are seven candidates, are there seven votes for the first candidate and six for the second? That system would be unfair, because most people do not place political parties in order of preference. An order of preference would not reflect the degree of satisfaction or dissatisfaction on the part of an individual elector with any particular party. However, that would be the logic of a proportional representation system if there were any fairness about it. If we had a system that allowed an individual to give so many of his votes to individual candidates to demonstrate relative preference between the individuals, ultimately electors would concentrate all their votes upon the one candidate of the one party whom they strongly and vehemently supported.
What would be the result of that concentration of votes? Ultimately we should be placing all our votes on one candidate and we should be back where we started, with the system that is the simplest and most effective method of parliamentary democracy that we have. I, for one, do not want to see it changed.

Mr. John Smith: For the second time in this calendar year—first on the Scotland and Wales Bill and now on the Scotland Bill—we have had a fairly extensive debate on proportional representation. The amendments seek to change the system that the Government propose for Scotland, whereas last Session the Government's proposals related to Scotland and Wales.
Naturally enough, the debate has centred on the concepts of proportional representation in general and on certain schemes in particular. I must make it clear to my hon. Friends that they will

have a free vote on the method of election in the Division that will follow. As my hon. Friends will be aware, the Government have put forward a system of election that is the first-past-the-post method. I must pass one or two comments on the criticisms that have been made of it and the advocacy that has been directed towards proportional representation systems.
There are two general points worth noting. First, direct election systems, such as we now have at Westminster and in local government in all parts of Great Britain, do not necessarily produce a markedly non-proportional result; they merely offer in some circumstances a higher probability of that result than proportional representation systems.
Secondly, no workable proportional representation system gives perfect proportionality. Practical considerations always compel some abatement of ideal mathematical purity. We see that in the 5 per cent. provision, which is embodied in the amendment. In comparing electoral systems we never deal with black and white and compare fair versus unfair; we deal with degrees and trade-offs between arithmetical equity and valid considerations of every kind, the most important of which is the effect upon the political system of the change in the electoral arrangements.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will the Minister's brief be used by whoever speaks on operating proportional representation in direct elections?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman should understand that there is one important difference between the regional list system and the proposals that are put forward as amendments to the Bill on direct elections. When elections take place to the European Assembly we shall not be electing an Administration, but under the provisions of the Scottish Assembly we shall be electing an Administration. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is capable of understanding that distinction. He should be able to do so. I hope that he will manage to comprehend it.
A further general consideration is that no electoral system can safely be evaluated in isolation from the political context. The effect of a system in one country may be completely unlike the effect in


another. It was interesting that my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) said, in justifying the party list element of his amendment, that it worked perfectly well in West Germany. My hon. Friend went on to ask why it should not work perfectly well in this country.
In the previous Session proportional representation amendments were tabled by a number of Members, including my hon. Friend. Among them was the party list system. We were referred to the Hansard Society report by Lord Blake, which states:
We do not think that the West German system is suitable for adoption in Great Britain.
It seems rather odd that it was unsuitable for adoption in Britain last year but is apparently suitable this year. The experience of West Germany was just as available last year as it is this year.
It is difficult to undertake constitutional transplant surgery. We must justify any change in terms of our traditions and our aspirations for the electoral system.
One practical difficulty that arises under proportional representation systems is that they are much more likely to produce coalition Governments. Of course, coalition Governments can stem from any system of direct representation, but under proportional representation systems they are much more likely. There is some evidence from Europe that such Governments are often weak, lacking authority, stability and consistency. That is a relevant consideration for us to take into account when we consider the implications for the Scottish Executive of a proportional representation system.
It is also a valid consideration that the Government that people get may be determined not by their choice but by backstage bargaining between different groups that come together to form a coalition Government. That may mean that the programme of the coalition will depart from promises that individual parties made to the electorate. In those circumstances democratic accountability may be obscured rather than illuminated.
There is the possibility that one partner in the coalition will blame another for the failure to implement something that was promised to the electorate in the manifestos upon which stood the Mem

bers who were elected, or the parties. It might be difficult in such circumstances to adhere to the doctrines of collective responsibility, which is an important feature of democratic government.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Surely it is unfair for the Minister to make the possibility of the creation of coalitions a major criticism of the proportional representation system of elections, he having accepted that the first-past-the-post system also produces them, and when he is almost at the stage of operating one.

Mr. Smith: I was not aware of that. I was not aware of it last evening. As the hon. Gentleman knows full well, there is no coalition arrangement at present. I said—I was trying to put it fairly—that while direct systems do not mean that coalitions are impossible, I think that on balance it is more likely that coalitions will emerge from a complex system of voting that produces a larger number of parties. There is little doubt that even with the 5 per cent. qualification—I follow the logic of having it—there would be more political parties operating in Scotland after the passage of this legislation. Obvious difficulties are caused by such a situation. Some parties are put in a balancing position, and they may exert an influence upon the conduct of the Government much greater than the vote that they obtained from the electorate would justify.
There is one feature of the argument that leads me to agree thoroughly with the right hon. Members for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) and Down, South (Mr. Powell). Some have argued that we should adopt proportional representation so as to keep the Scottish National Party from power. I do not believe that the SNP will achieve a large number of votes in the first Assembly elections, but that is a matter of judgment.
I spend a great deal of time trying to persuade my electors, and electors elsewhere who reside in Scotland, of the folly of the policies followed by the SNP. Whether I am successful in that objective or whether I am not. I do not believe that it would be ethical or prudent to select an electoral system for the sake of near-term objectives of a partisan nature. We should consider what is the best system, taking into account all consideration of fairness and


the maintenance of an effective Government. We should make our decision on that basis, rather than considering the partisan political consequences that may flow.
In the amendment of my hon Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian the system that is proposed recognises the value of the direct constituency link. I think that all Members will accept its value. However, my hon. Friend proposes to get the element of proportionality into the total result by adding certain other Members who think colloquially are called "topped-up Members" of the Assembly. We were told last year by the advocates of proportional representation—the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) and my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian seemed to be the leading figures in pushing forward the argument—that it was better to do it by a system based on the results of the elections rather than have a party list system. In the brief that they prepared for the debate during the Scotland and Wales Bill they advertised that feature of the scheme as being a good idea, because it avoided having a party list. Indeed, the phase used in the brief was:
additional Members are not determined by the parties on a list system but by the voters through the ballot box.
That was under the heading "Advantages of the amendment".
There has obviously been a change of policy now. I do not complain about that. People are entitled to change their minds. The proponents now come forward with the party list argument. If the amendment had been carried to the Scotland and Wales Bill, we should have been saddled with a system which on mature reflection they decided was not a wise one to advocate to Parliament and they are now advocating a different proposition.

Mr. Kershaw: It is rather hard for the Minister of State to criticise the proposals in this amendment by referring to proposals which are not in the amendment.

Mr. Smith: I am drawing attention to the difficulty of maintaining a consistent line of argument. A certain proposition was being advocated earlier in this calen

dar year and in the last Session of Parliament not so many months ago and apparently a decision has been taken to abandon that feature.

Mr. Rifkind: Does not the Minister appreciate that there is no greater difficulty as regards consistency than the difficulty he himself has in defending changes in this Bill as compared with the Scotland and Wales Bill?

Mr. Smith: The changes that I propose to the Bill and which I hope that the Committee will accept are more sensible changes. I think that there are difficulties both with the system proposed for proportional representation last time and with the system that is proposed this year, but it is perfectly legitimate for me to point out that these differences exist.
I am also very puzzled about what would be the rôle of the Members on the party list system. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian drew attention to a feature of the amendment which says that the party lists would be democratically decided. I do not know whether that phrase conceals more than it reveals. It does not say how a party list is to be democratically decided. It is a matter of it being up to the parties and to their interpretation of what democracy would be.
Here we come up against a very clear distinction from what happens in West Germany where there is a complicated system of electoral law which governs a number of these things and which does not obtain in this country.
Let us assume, though, that the problem could be circumvented, although we should bear in mind that the selection of party lists would no doubt give a great deal more weight to the party machinery of political parties than to the Members and to the electors in individual constituencies. This is no doubt a point that hon. Members will wish to take into account before casting their votes tonight.
There seems to be total confusion about what these party list Members are to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian introduced an argument to the effect that it would bring in people whom he called politically qualified but who did not get involved in the ordinary political processes. I do not know how people acquire some notion


of political qualification without going through the political processes.

Mr. Powell: By getting a degree.

Mr. Smith: They might be given a degree in the class which my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian conducts in the University of Edinburgh. I have no doubt that he would think that a very suitable political qualification.
Last night the right hon. Member for Orkney and Sheltand (Mr. Grimond) met this concept head-on and said that he had great suspicion of the notion of somehow virtuous people being drafted into the Assembly who had not been through the normal political processes. I have come across a cutting from the Scotsman which reports what appears to have been a Press conference given by those advocating this amendment in Edinburgh. There is this passage referring to the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian:
It would, he agreed, be a way of slipping an upper house element into a single chamber legislature.
I find the reference to "an upper house element" the most surprising of all the political concepts that have been advertised in the course of this debate. Presumably, on the argument that this is how the party list should be conducted, these are people who go on to the party list because they are above and beyond the grubby business of collecting votes and advertising themselves to the ordinary electors. On this basis I do not believe that it is an advance of democracy.
The other point that disturbed me was that the hon. Lady the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) said that one advantage of having such party list Members was that a person who disagreed with the politics of the Member who was representing him would go to someone of his own political persuasion who was in the Assembly as a result of a party list. To take a very direct example from the hon. Lady's constituency, presumably a Labour voter should go to see a Labour Member elected on a party list, thus avoiding the hon. Lady who might be in the Assembly as a Scottish National Party Member. I think that this is not only unsound but is a rather pernicious doctrine.
Members of Parliament—my own impression is that this is the rule followed

by the vast majority of Members, if not by every Member—strive very hard to represent the views of every one of their constituents whatever the political views of those constituents are. It would be highly undesirable for there to be competition for the representation of people in the electorate.
6.15 p.m.
I know full well that it will be said that there will be two Members or three Members for the first period of the Assembly, but it is only for the first period and then for a very practical reason. We intend to make it single-Member constituencies as soon as the first period is over and we must look at this in the long term and not in the very short term. It is thoroughly bad that that idea should be encouraged.

Mrs. Bain: At no point did I suggest that any Member of Parliament neglected people because they had a different political philosophy from his own. What I said was that there is a small distinct minority of people in each constituency who do not like to approach a Member of Parliament because he has different political views from their own. I could show the Minister letters which prove that people are embarrassed about going to a Member who is of another party. The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) could also show the Minister letters from people in my constituency who have approached him. This is what happens in the normal process.

Mr. Smith: The way in which Members of Parliament react to letters they receive from constituents who are not their own is obviously a matter for their own taste. I follow the rule, as I think do the vast majority of Members, that Members make representations only on behalf of their own constituents, and that they would normally refer a letter from another Member's constituent to that Member.
The hon. Lady may be correct, although it has not been my experience, that there are people who refuse to contact a Member of Parliament because they do not like his politics. My view is that it is bad luck, he is the Member who represents them and other Members should not be encouraged to take up matters for them. After all, that Member is paid to represent them in the House


of Commons, and I would say that the same principle applies to the Assembly.
One of the difficulties that would arise if there were two classes of Members is that there would be a desire, as evidently there is in the West German system, for Members to be directly elected and therefore to speak with a little more authenticity, in that they spoke for a particular neighbourhood and had been endorsed by a particular electorate.
There will be an opportunity for Members who are in the Assembly on the party list system to be campaigning against a Member of the Assembly who is directly elected, but not just in the normal course of being a candidate. A candidate might legitimately campaign all the time between elections, but such a person would be campaigning with the authority of an elected Member of the Assembly, although he had not been directly elected by any section of the electorate.
These are serious and weighty considerations. They have certainly weighed with the Government in influencing them to come down on the side of the well-tried and well-understood system in this country which we operate at Westminster and in local government and which we think we should operate in the Scottish Assembly.

Mr. David Steel: A few sentences ago the Minister skipped rather lightly over the fact that for the first elections we must have multi-Member seats using the existing system. Therefore, in that sense he must accept that it is not the well-tried Westminster system at all. The inbuilt distortions in such a system will be even greater in a three-Member seat where, given the sort of result that we had in Dunbartonshire, East at the last election, there would be one-third of the votes for each of three parties but one of them would scoop the pool and get all three seats. He must try to answer those criticisms which have been made in the debate.

Mr. Smith: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I thought that I had made it clear I did not think that the three-Member system or two-Member system which will run for only the first period was satisfactory. It has been

arrived at because it is not practically possible within the time scale to have the Boundary Commission report divide Scotland into single-Member constituencies. I do not think one should take as the normal situation for the Scottish Assembly that initial period of two Members or three Members, because we know that if the Bill is approved by Parliament we shall move to single-Member constituencies after a four-year period and, as that will be the normal situation, I am entitled to refer to that as the norm.
The point about the Westminster system being well tried arose because I was referring to the method by which people vote. The method we will use for voting on the first-past-the-post system for the Assembly is the same as that which we use for Westminster, save that at the first election they will have not just one vote but a minimum of two in each constituency.
The system is different, but it is not so different and I think that people will be able to understand it much better, though I do not make a great deal about the complicated nature of the proportional representation system. This is not one of the arguments I have chosen to adopt. I do not like saying that electors will not be able to understand any system. I think that politicians underestimate the electorate at their peril, and I think that they can understand a lot of these complicated systems very easily. I am not taking that argument at all. I think that there are many other arguments against the amendment that is proposed without my using one of the poorer ones.

Mr. Kershaw: By the same token, the Minister of State will have noticed that in these amendments it is provided that this arrangement shall last for only the first Assembly. If it is found unsatisfactory, in the way that he says the Government's idea would be unsatisfactory with more than one Member, it could be changed, could it not?

Mr. Smith: It is true that the amendment provides that the Assembly itself and Parliament, in a sort of overriding way, will decide what are the eventual processes. But in the Bill it has been made crystal clear that we shall stick to first-past-the-post principles and that after the first period is over we shall move


to single-Member constituencies. In the amendment that the hon. Member put forward, there is some doubt about the eventual position, but in the Bill it is clear what the position would be, unless, of course, Parliament subsequently decided to amend it—but that could happen to any piece of legislation.
Speaking from the Dispatch Box and having explained why the Government have chosen the first-past-the-post system, I hope that the Committee will reject the amendments. I hope that my hon. Friends, who will be having a free vote, as has been explained already, will take

these matters legitimately into consideration, but on this occasion they must make up their own minds.

Mr. George Cunningham: Mr. George Cunningham
rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 107, Noes 290.

Division No. 15]
AYES
[6.21 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Haselhurst, Alan
Roper, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Hayhoe, Barney
Rose, Paul B.


Bain, Mrs. Margaret
Henderson, Douglas
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Baker, Kenneth
Hooson, Emlyn
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Beith, A. J.
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Sainsbury, Tim


Benyon, W.
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Sandelson, Neville


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hurd, Douglas
Scott, Nicholas


Bottomley, Peter
James, David
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Bradley, Tom
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Sillars, James


Brocklebank-Fowler, C
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Sinclair, Sir George


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Bulmer, Esmond
Kershaw, Anthony
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Carlisle, Mark
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Spence, John


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Knox, David
Stainton, Keith


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Lee, John
Steel, Rt Hon David


Corbett, Robin
Luce, Richard
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Crawford, Douglas
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Crawshaw, Richard
MacCormick, Iain
Temple-Morris, Peter


Critchley, Julian
Mayhew, Patrick
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Crouch, David
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thompson, George


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Mitchell, Austin
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Dykes, Hugh
Monro, Hector
Townsend, Cyril D.


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Newton, Tony
Watt, Hamish


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Oakes, Gordon
Weatherill, Bernard


Fairgrieve, Russell
Pardoe, John
Welsh, Andrew


Faulds, Andrew
Parker, John
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Penhaligon, David
Wigley, Dafydd


Ford, Ben
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Freud, Clement
Rathbone, Tim
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Ginsburg, David
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Reid, George



Gray, Hamish
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hall-Davis, A. G. F
Rifkind, Malcolm
Sir Nigel Fisher and


Hampson, Dr Keith
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Mr. Eric Ogden.




NOES


Alison, Michael
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Canavan, Dennis


Allaun, Frank
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Carmichael, Neil


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Carson, John


Armstrong, Ernest
Bradford, Rev Robert
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Arnold, Tom
Braine, Sir Bernard
Cartwright, John


Ashton, Joe
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Brotherton, Michael
Channon, Paul


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Churchill, W. S.


Atkinson, Norman
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Clark, William (Croydon S)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Buchan, Norman
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Buchanan, Richard
Clegg, Walter


Bell, Ronald
Buck, Antony
Clemitson, Ivor


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Budgen, Nick
Cocks, Rt Kon Michael (Bristol S)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Coleman, Donald


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)


Boardman, H.
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Cope, John


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Campbell, Ian
Costain, A. P.




Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Percival, Ian


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Pink, R. Bonner


Cunningham, Dr J. (White[...])
Jopling, Michael
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Dalyell, Tam
Joseph, Rt Hon. Sir Keith
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Davidson, Arthur
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Price, William (Rugby)


Deakins, Eric
Kelley, Richard
Raison, Timothy


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kerr, Russell
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Dempsey, James
Kilfedder, James
Rhodes James, R.


Doig, Peter
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Richardson, Miss Jo


Dormand, J. D.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Knight, Mrs Jill
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lamborn, Harry
Robinson, Geoffrey


Dunlop, John
Lamond, James
Roderick, Caerwyn


Dunn, James A.
Lamont, Norman
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Dunnett, Jack
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Durant, Tony
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Rooker, J. W.


Eadie, Alex
Lawrence, Ivan
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lawson, Nigel
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Edge, Geoff
Leadbitter, Ted
Ryman, John


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sever, J.


Emery, Peter
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


English, Michael
Lipton, Marcus
Shepherd, Colin


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Litterick, Tom
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Loveridge, John
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Loyden, Eddie
Silverman, Julius


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Luard, Evan
Silvester, Fred


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fell, Anthony
McCartney, Hugh
Skinner, Dennis


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McCusker, H.
Small, William


Flannery, Martin
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McElhone, Frank
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Macfarlane, Neil
Snape, Peter


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Spearing, Nigel


Forman, Nigel
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Forrester, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Spriggs, Leslie


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Marks, Kenneth
Sproat, Iain


Fox, Marcus
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stanley, John


Fry, Peter
Marten, Neil
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mather, Carol
Stokes, John


George, Bruce
Maude, Angus
Stott, Roger


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mawby, Ray
Stradling Thomas, J.


Golding, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Gorst, John
Maynard, Miss Joan
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Gourlay, Harry
Meacher, Michael
Tebbit, Norman


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mendelson, John
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Grieve, Percy
Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Griffiths, Eldon
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Grist, Ian
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Grocott, Bruce
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Tierney, Sydney


Grylls, Michael
Mills, Peter
Tinn, James


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Moate, Roger
Tomlinson, John


Hannam, John
Molloy, William
Torney, Tom


Harper, Joseph
Molyneaux, James
Urwin, T. W.


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Montgomery, Fergus
Vaughan, Dr Gerald


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Moonman, Eric
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Hatton, Frank
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wakeham, John


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Morgan, Geraint
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wall, Patrick


Higgins, Terrence L.
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Walters, Dennis


Hodgson, Robin
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Wells, John


Holland, Philip
Moyle, Roland
White, James (Po[...]k)


Hooley, Frank
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Whitehead, Phillip


Hordern, Peter
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Whitlock, William


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Neave, Airey
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Neubert, Michael
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Newens, Stanley
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Hunter, Adam
Noble, Mike
Winterton, Nicholas


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Woodall, Alec


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Ovenden, John
Woof, Robert


Janner, Greville
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Park, George



Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanet'd&amp;W'df'd)
Parry, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jessel, Toby
Pattie, Geoffrey
Mr. Alf Bates and


John, Brynmor
Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. James Hamilton.

Question accordingly negatived.

6.30 p.m.

The Chairman: The next amendment is No. 19.
With this we may take the following amendments.

No. 20, in page 1, line 16, leave out subsections (2), (3), (4) and (5) and insert—
'(2) There shall be fifty-seven members.
(3) The Boundary Commission for Scotland shall prepare a scheme dividing Scotland into fifty-seven constituencies.'

No. 152, in page 1, line 16, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
'(2) The initial members of the Assembly shall be returned for those Assembly constituencies specified in the first column of Schedule (Initial Constituencies and Members) to this Act, and the number of members returned by each Assembly constituency shall be that specified for the constituency in the second column of that Schedule.'.

No. 22, in page 1, line 16, leave out 'initial'.

No. 24, in page 1, line 17, leave out from be ' to end of line 23 and insert
'constituted from one representative from each district and regional council in those parts of Scotland over which the Assembly is granted control'.

No. 25, in page 1, line 19, leave out from 'Scotland' to end of line 23 and insert
'and there shall be one Member for each such constituency'.

No. 161, in page 1, line 20, leave out from beginning to end of line 23 and insert
'(a) two Members for each Parliamentary constituency'.

No. 162, in page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (3).

No. 30, in page 2, line 1, leave out 'initial'.

No. 33, in page 2, line 2, at end insert
'and one initial member for Ross and one for Cromarty and one initial member for Caithness and one for Sutherland'.

No. 34, in page 2, line 3, leave out subsections (4) and (5).

No. 153, in page 2, line 6, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 7.

No. 154, in page 2, line 8, leave out 'Part III of Schedule 1' and insert
'Schedule (Initial Constituencies and Members)'.

No. 155, in page 2, line 10, leave out 'that Schedule' and insert
Schedule 1 to this Act'.

No. 156, in page 2, line 11, leave out from 'applies' to end of line 12.

No. 192, Schedule 1—Assembly Constituencies—page 40, leave out lines 1 to 29 and insert—

'PART II

DIVISION OF SCOTLAND INTO ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCIES

6. Each Assembly constituency shall be wholly comprised in one region or island area.

7. The number of Assembly members for each region or islands area shall be determined by the number of Assembly quotas to the next whole number above contained in the electorate of the region or islands area.

8. Where the number of Assembly members for a region or islands area is seven or fewer, that region or islands area shall be an Assembly constituency.

9. Where the number of Assembly members for a region or islands area is eight or more, that region or islands area shall be divided into two or more Assembly constituencies, provided that—

(a) no such Assembly constituency shall have fewer than four members or more than eight members, and
(b) as far as practicable each such Assembly constituency shall have five, six, or seven members, and
(c) as far as practicable the ratio of Assembly members to electors shall be the same in each such Assembly constituency.

10. In dividing a region into Assembly constituencies, no district shall be included partly in one district and partly in another, except in so far as may be necessary to meet paragraph 9(a) above.

11. A Boundary Commission may depart from the strict application of paragraph 9 Or 10 of this Schedule—

(a) if special geographical considerations, including in particular the size, shape and accessibility of an Assembly constituency, appear to them to render the departure reasonable; or
(b) if, taking account, so far as they reasonably can, of the inconvenience resulting from alterations of Assembly constituencies, and of any local ties which would be broken by such alterations, a departure appears to them desirable.'.

No. 157, in page 40, leave out lines 30 to 36.

No. 158, in page 40, line 40, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 41 and insert:
assembly quota" means the number obtained by dividing the electorate by 145.'.

No. 159, page 41, leave out lines 14 to 25.

No. 228, New Schedule—Initial Constituencies and Members—


Initial constituencies formed from existing Parliamentary constituencies:
number of members to be returned:


Orkney
1


Shetland
1


Western Isles
2


Caithness and Sutherland
2


Ross and Cromarty
2


Inverness
3


Moray and Nairn
3


Banff


East Aberdeenshire
5


West Aberdeenshire


North Angus and Mearns
4


South Angus


Kinross and West Perthshire
4


Perth and East Perthshire


Central Fife
5


East Fife


Dunfermline
5


Kirkcaldy


Greenock and Port Glasgow
6


West Renfrewshire


East Renfrewshire
5


Paisley


Central Dunbartonshire
7


East Dunbartonshire


West Dunbartonshire


Bute and North Ayrshire
5


Central Ayrshire


Ayr
7


Kilmarnock


South Ayrshire


Midlothian
7


West Lothian


Berwick and East Lothian
5


Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles


Dumfries
5


Galloway


Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire
8


Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth


West Stirlingshire


Argyll
2


Bothwell
7


Coatbridge and Airdrie


North Lanarkshire


Hamilton
6


Lanark


Motherwell and Wishaw


East Kilbride
5


Rutherglen


Aberdeen North
5


Aberdeen South


Dundee East
5


Dundee West


Edinburgh Central
7


Edinburgh Leith


Edinburgh North


Edinburgh West


Edinburgh East
7


Edinburgh Pentlands


Edinburgh South


Glasgow Garscadden
7


Glasgow Hillhead


Glasgow Kelvingrove


Glasgow Maryhill


Glasgow Provan
5


Glasgow Shettleston


Glasgow Springburn

Initial constituencies formed from existing Parliamentary constituencies:
Number of members to be returned:


Glasgow Cathcart
4


Glasgow Central


Glasgow Queen's Park


Glasgow Govan
5


Glasgow Craigton


Glasgow Pollok

Mr. Pym: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. May I ask you, please, at the conclusion of the debate on this group of amendments, to call for a separate Division on Amendment No. 25?

The Chairman: In principle, yes.

Mr. George Cunningham: Further to the point of order, Mr. Murton. Will you enlighten us on the way this is to work? As I understand the position, somebody is about to move Amendment No. 19. Let us assume that the debate on that amendment proceeds until 7 p.m. Am I reading the guillotine motion wrongly in thinking that if that happens you will be required to put the Question on Amendment No. 19, which will by then have been moved, and that you will then be required, also by the terms of the guillotine, to put the Question on Clause 2 stand part, on Schedule 1, and on Clause 3 stand part, as being part of this group?
You have just indicated that in principle you are willing for Amendment No. 25 to have a separate vote, but if the discussion on Amendment No. 19 goes on until 7 p.m. no one will have moved Amendment No. 25, so how are you to have a separate vote?

The Chairman: I think I should make it clear to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) that I used the words "in principle" advisedly, because we must see how we proceed. Everything else that the hon. Gentleman has said is absolutely correct, provided always that I have proposed the Question on Amendment No. 19 at the time of the guillotine.

Mr. George Cunningham: I am most grateful for that explanation. Since I have created this time, I should like to use 30 seconds of it so that we may be completely clear. Am I right in thinking that if anybody wants an amendment


to be taken, it will be necesary to persuade everyone else to conclude the discussion on the previous amendments, or on the head amendment of the group, and get any voting on it through in time to allow it to be formally moved? I think the answer to that is "Yes".
My second question concerns the guillotine motion, which says that among the protected Questions which will go to a vote—whether they are among the group I have already mentioned or not—there is also to be included the Question on any amendment or motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any hon. Member if that amendment or motion is moved by a member of the Government. Assuming that in this group there were an amendment—which there is not—in the Government's name, would the Question on that amendment have to be put even though the amendment had not been moved? It does not say that. It says:
… if that amendment or Motion is moved …".
Is that to be taken to mean moved after the guillotine?

The Chairman: Yes. It will have to be moved formally by a member of the Government.

Mr. Cunningham: After the guillotine time, not before?

The Chairman: After the guillotine time.

Mr. Cunningham: It is a funny way to express it, I must say.

The Chairman: The Chair will not comment on the way in which anything is expressed.

Mr. Sproat: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 1, leave out lines 16 to 23, and insert
'The members of the Assembly shall be those Members of Parliament sitting for those constituencies in Scotland over which the Assembly is granted control'.
I can perhaps paraphrase what is meant by the amendment. The idea is that Scottish Members of Parliament should meet in Edinburgh from time to time to discuss those matters affecting Scotland that are currently discussed in the Scottish Grand Committee upstairs. It is not my wish to press the amendment to a Division because I do not regard it as an ideal situation, but I

believe that it is a situation that ought to be aired in the general context of the debate on devolution. I am sorry that only about 19 minutes are to be given to debate this important subject together with about a dozen perhaps more important amendments.
I believe that the matter ought to be aired because it is an idea that has been widely put forward in Scotland and in newspapers down south. The second reason for airing it is that the advantages are so striking by comparison with the disadvantages of the Scottish Assembly that the Bill seeks to set up. I accept that there are disadvantages in the idea of the Scottish Grand Committee sitting in Edinburgh from time to time, but they are as nothing compared to the idea of a permanent Scottish Assembly sitting in Edinburgh all the time.
Perhaps I should, at the outset, say what I think is the major disadvantage of the Scottish Grand Committee meeting in Edinburgh. It is worth making this point because it was made at different times by many people even before we became involved in this devolution debate. If Members of Parliament for Scottish seats are required, however infrequently, to sit in Edinburgh it will mean that, by definition, they will not at the same time be able to take part in the affairs of the House in London. I think that that ultimately would be a severe disadvantage, because if the sittings in Edinburgh were on Fridays, as some have suggested, or every fourth Monday, Scottish Members would not be able to be present at Question Time on Monday or at important debates on Friday afternoon—on Private Members' Bills, and so on. I am aware that the situation is far from ideal.
The situation is also far from ideal because there is a certain principle that should overlie all our debates on the way in which we govern the country and the way in which we make changes. We all believe that changes are necessary—administrative, legislative and constitutional—but such changes must affect all parts of the United Kingdom equally. That is the key principle, but the Bill affects Scotland in a different way from that in which it affects other parts of the United Kingdom. That is why it is a fundamentally objectionable Bill. The


reasons for saying that were gone into yesterday by myself and many others.
The suggestion that Scotland should be treated differently by having a Scottish Grand Committee sitting in Edinburgh violates the principle to which I have referred, but it does so to a lesser degree. Even if we do not have a Scottish Grand Committee sitting in Edinburgh, Committees of the House should sit in the morning to deal with regional affairs. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) and I were the only members of the Conservative Party who, some years ago, voted in favour of setting up regional committees. We did so because we thought that they would increase democracy, so long as that was done within the context and control of the House of Commons.
6.45 p.m.
By airing the advantages of this idea one can show the severe disadvantages of the Government's proposals. For example, one of the major disadvantages—and this will come out more and more in the referendum campaign, if he ever get to it—will be more government. This argument has been put forward endlessly in the House in previous debates, and rightly so, because the matter is so important. People in Scotland are fed up with more government and more bureaucracy, and more expenditure and more taxation to back it all up. I hear one of my hon. Friends add "and more inefficiency and more elections". The people of Scotland, and those living in other parts of the United Kingdom, object to all those increases. At least the Scottish Grand Committee sitting in Edinburgh would not let us in for any more of that. There would be no extra bureaucracy and expense, except perhaps for a few tickets. Generally, we would get rid of all the extras.
There are three serious problems, which nobody in the Committee has been able to overcome, and which the Bill elevates. There is the problem of Scottish Members voting on English matters, but English Members not being able to vote on Scottish matters. I shall not go into the endless ramifications of the West Lothian question, as it is called, but the tact that we go on raising this question proves that nobody has been able to

demonstrate that there is an answer to it. The fact is that there is not an answer to it within the context of what the Government suggest. There is no way in which the question can be dealt with, but at least within the context of a Scottish Grand Committee sitting in Edinburgh that objection would not apply.
Another strong objection is that in a unitary State one cannot give a permanent advantage to one part of the United Kingdom without, at the same time, necessarily and correspondingly bringing about a disadvantage for other parts of the United Kingdom. It is impossible to avoid that in a unitary State, and the idea that we should give more help to Glasgow because it happens to be in Scotland, rather than helping Liverpool which happens to be in England, although the unemployment rate is higher there than it is in Glasgow, is wrong. I see the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) shaking his head. He shook it yesterday. He is wrong, and he should check the latest figures in the Library.
One could go through other examples, such as East Anglia having 5 per cent. less than the average wage paid in Scotland. It is totally unfair to distribute the benefits of the United Kingdom Treasury on the basis of geopraphy rather than on the basis of need. There is no way in which one can get round this under the Bill.

Mr. James Sillars: Yesterday the hon. Gentleman was involved with the SNP on the question of London weighting and argued that it was distributed on the basis of need. Is he arguing that again this afternoon? I do not think anyone else would agree that London weighting is paid on the basis of need when one takes into account conditions in Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow and Dundee.

Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. It is paid on the basis of need, and it is on that basis that I support it. I hear someone say that it is paid on the basis of the cost of living. That is the answer. If the cost of living is as high in other parts of the United Kingdom as it is in London, people there should be paid the weighting allowance.

Mr. Sillars: rose—

Mr. Sproat: I shall not give way again, because the debate has to terminate in a few moments.
Those are just two of the irreducible conundrums that the Bill creates. They cannot be solved within the context of the Bill, but they could be solved in the context of a Scottish Grand Committee sitting in Edinburgh from time to time. I put this idea forward to be aired, to show up once again the fallacies, the stupidities and the anomalies that the Bill raises, and to demonstrate once again that they cannot be solved by setting up a separate Assembly in Scotland.

Mr. Brittan: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 25, which would have the effect of substantially reducing the number of Members of the Assembly, so that instead of the 150 Members proposed by the Government there would be a number equal to the number of Members of Parliament representing Scotland. I should add that if, as seems likely, there is no opportunity for me to move this amendment formally, I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends, in protest against that fact and the fact that many questions raised by the other amendments to Clause 2 cannot be debated, to vote against Clause 2 standing part of the Bill.
I turn now to the suggestion put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) about the Scottish Grand Committee sitting in Edinburgh. That proposal has great attractions. It does not involve the sort of constitutional conflicts which are involved in the Government's proposals. It would mean a kind of directly-elected Assembly sitting in Edinburgh and would involve substantially less cost than the cumbersome proposals put forward by the Government. It would not involve subverting the rôle of Members representing Scottish constituencies, as the present proposals undoubtedly do.
As my hon. Friend very fairly pointed out, there are difficulties in establishing the Scottish Grand Committee as an alternative to the Assembly if it is meant to do the work which the Government seek to allot to an Assembly. In the first place there would be an enormous burden of work on the Members concerned by asking them to undertake that work as well as the normal duties of a Member

of this House. Even more important, there are fundamental constitutional implications to the proposal. If Members of Parliament are to go to Edinburgh to sit as an Assembly they would obviously not be able to participate at the same time in the work of the House of Commons. That problem would not be solved by debating only English questions on days when Scottish Members were away in Edinburgh.
The whole concept of the United Kingdom is that Members of this House have the right to vote on all questions, therefore to have Scottish Members effectively disfranchised from voting on English matters would be fundamentally subversive to the United Kingdom, and all of us who believe in the unity of the United Kingdom would take very grave account of such disadvantages as those which this proposal would create. It would amount to the introduction of quasi-federalism by the back door, and as such it would not work.
It might be a different matter if the Parliament here were not sitting when the Assembly was sitting, but to expect this Parliament to impose upon itself a self-denying ordinance which would substantially reduce the amount of time that it was sitting, in order to leave time for Scottish Members to go to Edinburgh and debate the matters allotted to them, is perhaps unrealistic.
Nevertheless I suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South has done a great service to the House by raising this proposal, because he has underlined the potential of the Scottish Grand Committee as a means of providing scrutiny for the government of Scotland, which has not been adequately realised. It would be possible for the Scottish Grand Committee to have more meetings. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party said yesterday that Scottish Members do not have adequate time to question Ministers compared with the time available to English Members, because Scottish Question Time covers the whole range of subjects, whereas English—no, I mean United Kingdom—Ministers have separate Question Times for different subjects. One way of dealing with that problem would be to provide a Question Time in sittings of the Scottish Grand Committee. Also in terms of providing a focus for


Scotland, if the proceedings of the Scottish Grand Committee were broadcast, that, too, could have an impact on the people of Scotland. Therefore, although I do not believe that the proposal put forward by my hon. Friend would enable a solution to be found to the problems resulting from the creation of an Assembly, his proposal highlights alternatives which would be worth considering.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Brittan: I must ask the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) to forbear. Because of the guillotine, which is not of his making, there are precisely five minutes left to consider the very important question of the number of Members that the Scottish Assembly should have. There is no rational basis for the Government's suggestion that there should be 150 Members. That merely amounts to an approximate doubling of the number of Members of Parliament representing Scottish constituencies. That is a greater number than almost any Assembly in the world which is not a national or federal Assembly.
Looking at the countries which provide a comparison and which have federal or confederal solutions, we see that in Australia, for example, where the individual constituent parts have powers at least as great as those proposed for the Scottish Assembly, New South Wales, with a population of 4,600,000, has an Assembly with a main chamber of 96 Members. Queensland has 82 Members, South Australia 47, Tasmania 35, Victoria 73, and West Australia 51.
In Canada, Alberta has 75 Members. British Columbia, with a population of 2 million, has 55 seats, Manitoba 57, New Brunswick 58, Newfoundland 42, Nova Scotia 46, and Ontario 117. That is less than the number that the Government have proposed for Scotland, yet Ontario has a population of 7,700,000. Saskatchewan has 60 Members and Quebec 108.
That answers the argument put forward by the Government, when this matter was last debated, that it was necessary to have an Assembly of substantial size, because otherwise we could not have an Executive, Back Bench supporters for the Executive, a Front Bench

Opposition to the Executive and Back Bench supporters to the Opposition to the Executive. If it is possible to do all of that in the federal arrangements of Australia and Canada, it is certainly possible to do it in Scotland with an Assembly of far smaller size than that proposed by the Government.
The solution proposed in Amendment No. 25 would have other advantages. A considerable advantage would be that the Assembly would be smaller and less costly—and better for those reasons alone. In addition, it would mean that no further boundary review would be required to establish the limits of constituencies. Unlike the situation in the Government's proposals, there would be no multi-Member constituencies. We have heard in the last day or so about the tremendous advantages of having a close nexus between a Member of Parliament as an individual and his constituents. It would also be easier for links to exist between Members of Parliament and Members of the Assembly, because there would be a one-to-one ratio in which discussion of mutual matters would be much assisted. The Royal Commission suggested an Assembly of 100 Members. That lies somewhere between our proposal and what the Government have put into the Bill.
In the last debate the Government conceded that the figure of 150-odd was not magical and that it was not to be regarded as the last word. We remain of the view that a much smaller Assembly would be able to carry out the rôle allotted to the Scottish Assembly. If New South Wales, in a fully federal structure, can manage with 96 Members for a population of 4,600,000 and i Queensland can manage with 82 Members for a population of 1,827,000 Scotland should be able to do the same

It being Seven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded pursuant to the Order [16th November] and the Resolution yesterday, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at Seven o'clock.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The House Divided: Ayes 208. Noes 180.

Division No. 16]
AYES
[7.00 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Newens, Stanley


Anderson, Donald
Forrester, John
Noble, Mike


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Oakes, Gordon


Armstrong, Ernest
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Ogden, Eric


Ashton. Joe
Freud, Clement
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
George, Bruce
Pardoe, John


Atkinson, Norman
Gilbert, Dr John
Park, George


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ginsburg, David
Parker, John


Bain, Mrs. Margaret
Golding, John
Parry, Robert


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Gourlay, Harry
Pavitt, Laurie


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Penhaligon, David


Bates, Alf
Grocott, Bruce
Price, William (Rugby)


Beith, A. J.
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Reid, George


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hatton, Frank
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Boardman, H.
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Robinson, Geoffrey


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Henderson, Douglas
Roderick, Caerwyn


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hooley, Frank
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Hooson, Emlyn
Rooker, J. W.


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Horam, John
Roper, John


Bradley, Tom
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Rose, Paul B.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hunter, Adam
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Ryman, John


Buchan, Norman
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Sever, J.


Buchanan, Richard
Janner, Greville
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Sillars, James


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
John, Brynmor
Silverman, Julius


Campbell, Ian
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Skinner, Dennis


Canavan, Dennis
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Small, William


Carmichael, Neil
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Cartwright, John
Kelley, Richard
Snape, Peter


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Kerr, Russell
Spriggs, Leslie


Clemitson, Ivor
Kilfedder, James
Stallard, A. W.


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Steel, Rt Hon David


Coleman, Donald
Lambie, David
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Lamborn, Harry
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Lamond, James
Stott, Roger


Corbett, Robin
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Strang, Gavin


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lee, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Lipton, Marcus
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Crawford, Douglas
Litterick, Tom
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Crawshaw, Richard
Loyden, Eddie
Thompson, George


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Luard, Evan
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Cryer, Bob
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Tierney, Sydney


Davidson, Arthur
McCartney, Hugh
Tinn, James


Deakins, Eric
MacCormick, lain
Tomlinson, John


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Torney, Tom


Dempsey, James
McElhone, Frank
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Doig, Peter
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Dormand, J. D.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Watt, Hamish


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Madden, Max
Welsh, Andrew


Duffy, A. E. P.
Magee, Bryan
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Dunn, James A.
Marks, Kenneth
White, James (Pollok)


Dunnett, Jack
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Whitlock, William


Eadie, Alex
Maynard, Miss Joan
Wigley, Dafydd


Edge, Geoff
Meacher, Michael
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


English, Michael
Mikardo, Ian
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Mitchell, Austin
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Molloy, William
Woof, Robert


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)



Faulds, Andrew
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Moyle, Roland
Mr. James Hamilton and


Flannery, Martin
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King





NOES


Abse, Leo
Baker, Kenneth
Biggs-Davison, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Bell, Ronald
Bradford, Rev Robert


Alison, Michael
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Brittan, Leon


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(Spelthorne)
Benyon, W.
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.




Brotherton, Michael
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pink, R. Bonner


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
James, David
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Buck, Antony
Jessel, Toby
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Budgen, Nick
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Bulmer, Esmond
Joseph, Rt Hon. Sir Keith
Raison, Timothy


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Carlisle, Mark
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Carson, John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Knight, Mrs Jill
Rhodes James, R.


Channon, Paul
Knox, David
Rifkind, Malcolm


Churchill, W. S.
Lamont, Norman
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lawrence, Ivan
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Clegg, Walter
Lawson, Nigel
Sainsbury, Tim


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Cope, John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Costain, A. P.
Litterick, Tom
Shepherd, Colin


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Loveridge, John
Silvester, Fred


Dalyell, Tam
Loyden, Eddie
Sinclair, Sir George


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Luce, Richard
Skeet, T. H. H.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McCusker, H.
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Dunlop, John
Macfarlane, Neil
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
MacGregor, John
Speed, Keith


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Spence, John


Emery, Peter
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Marten, Neil
Sproat, Iain


Fairgrieve, Russell
Mates, Michael
Stainton, Keith


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mather, Carol
Stanbrook, Ivor


Flannery, Martin
Maude, Angus
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Mawby, Ray
Stokes, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stradling Thomas, J.


Forman, Nigel
Mayhew, Patrick
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Tebbit, Norman


Fox, Marcus
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Fry, Peter
Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Miller. Hal (Bromsgrove)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mills, Peter
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Gorst, John
Miscampbell, Norman
Townsend, Cyril D.


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Vaughan, Dr Gerald


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Moate, Roger
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Molyneaux, James
Wakeham, John


Gray, Hamish
Monro, Hector
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Grieve, Percy
Montgomery, Fergus
Wall, Patrick


Griffiths, Eldon
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Walters, Dennis


Grist, Ian
Morgan, Geraint
Weatherill, Bernard


Grylls, Michael
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Wells, John


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Winterton, Nicholas


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hannam, John
Neave, Airey
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Haselhurst, Alan
Neubert, Michael
Younger, Hon George


Hayhoe, Barney
Newton, Tony



Hodgson, Robin
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Holland, Philip
Ovenden, John
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Howell, David (Guildford)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Sir George Young.


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Pattie, Geoffrey



Hurd, Douglas
Percival, Ian

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Sproat: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. Perhaps you can help the Committee. We have got ourselves into a totally ridiculous position. We have spent only about five minutes discussing the important matter of the size of the projected Scottish Assembly. This is not a theoretical matter. It is of immense importance to any future Assembly: the

functions of the House of Commons depend upon its size, but, because of the way that the guillotine is operated, we have spent only five minutes out of a total of seven or eight hours on that matter of size. Is it not possible that some way could be devised within the guillotine—I am not objecting to the guillotine at present—so that the first group of amendments in a block of amendments does not take up all the time available for that block? Is there a way in which we can ensure that each group of amendments gets a fair crack of the whip and in which we can avoid the situation where a matter of crucial importance to Scotland is debated for only five minutes and is not voted upon?

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to to the Business Committee's motion and it is, therefore, not a matter for me. On the other hand, what the hon. Member has said will be heard by those who are concerned.

Mr. George Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. I understood that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) was not adressing himself to the grievances that arise automatically from the guillotine, although these are real enough, but to the exercise of your discretion. That was the point to which I was addressing myself in my several interventions earlier in the debate. In this particular block of amendments we are in a worse position in a way, in that we have only three hours 40 minutes and a larger list of groups than we had in the previous block. I suggest that you, Mr. Murton, and other occupants of the Chair, should at leisure—but not too much leisure—without giving any indication at this stage, consider whether you should exercise your discretion in such a way as to maximise the number of amendments which come to a vote. I stress "come to a vote" because that is more important than debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is more important. The House of Commons thinks that talking is what matters, but it is voting that matters. We could come to an amendment that could actually be carried, but we might not have a chance to vote because of the way in which the Chair exercises its discretion.
Therefore, what I am saying is that if it becomes plain to you that there is an amendment, other than the first amendment on the first line of any section, which is a serious amendment in the sense of having a chance of passing, I ask you to exercise your discretion in such a way as to ensure that the Committee has an opportunity either to pass or not to pass that amendment. I ask you not to reply to my point now.

The Chairman: I shall do so to this extent. I shall be quick about it. First, points of order come out of guillotine time. Second, the Chair does exercise its discretion, sometimes in very difficult circumstances. But I take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said and I am sure the Committee does, too.

Clause 4

DISSOLUTION OF ASSEMBLY

Mr. Brittan: I beg to move Amendment No. 174, in page 2, leave out lines 36 to 40 and insert
'it appears to the Secretary of State that the Assembly is unable to reach decisions on matters requiring urgent decision and that the government of Scotland is gravely affected as a result:
Provided that no order shall be made on that ground unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament'.

The Chairman: With this we may take the following amendments:

No. 53, in page 2, line 36, leave out from 'dissolved' to end of line 40.

No. 169, in page 2, line 38, leave out 'two-thirds' and insert 'one-half'.

Mr. Brittan: I preface my remarks by giving my full support to the observations that have been made from both sides of the House. It is an appalling reflection on the effect of the guillotine that it has not even been possible to debate the amendment on which the last Bill foundered, namely, the one proposing the Speaker's Conference to consider the principle and, by implication, the role of Scottish Members in this House after the enactment of such a measure. It was that debate which last time persuaded the House to reject the Scotland and Wales Bill and it is truly fantastic that a situation should be allowed to arise in which the equivalent amendment cannot be debated in any shape or form in this House.
In the Scotland and Wales Bill, which was considered in the last Session, one of the features criticised to a substantial extent was the extreme rigidity of the arrangement whereby the term of office of the Assembly was prescribed by that Bill. It was variable only by variations of two months either side of the normal date. That was obviously designed to deal with very minor clashes with other dates on which it would not be appropriate to hold elections for the Scottish Assembly.
Grave objections were made to that arrangement in the debate on 2nd February 1977. It was pointed out that it would be absurd to have so inflexible


an arrangement, for in spite of any changes that might take place while the Assembly was in office, in spite of by-elections that might take place or, more probably, shifts of opinion within the Assembly which would lead to the Executive losing the support that it had at the outset, it was quite impossible to dissolve the Assembly or for it to come to an end in any shape or form.
When that complaint was made objection was taken that this was no different from the situation in the case of a county council or other local government unit in which a fixed term was prescribed. But an answer was most certainly forthcoming. It was that the situation with regard to the Scottish Assembly was in no way analogous—certainly not fairly comparable—with that of a county council operating a committee system, because in the case of the Scottish Assembly what is proposed is not a committee system but an executive. It is a Government of a United Kingdom type combined with a legislature and not just an Assembly exercising executive powers through a committee system. It is that unique feature of a United Kingdom-type government sitting in an Asembly which itself has legislative power that makes it absolutely essential for there to be a degree of flexibility in the case of the Assembly with regard to its duration.
The point was made, as so often, by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who said:
I assume, therefore, that it is held to be desirable that, for such an Assembly to legislate, its leadership should be more compact, coherent and continuous than the leadership which is given in a local authority by a caucus of the chairman, the party chairman and the respective committees or however it may be arranged. It may be that it is because of its legislative character that this mansard roof of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is superimposed upon the Assembly."—[Official Report, 2nd February 1977; Vol. 925, c. 588–89.]
The reason for that superimposition is that it is plainly inappropriate to have a situation in which the Assembly and the First Secretary thereof may find themselves in a situation in which the Government of Scotland simply cannot continue because there is no coherent body able to give support to an Executive headed by a particular person.
It is right to say that the Government accepted the force of that argument to a

substantial extent, so much so that they have introduced in this Bill a provision that was not to be found in the Scotland and Wales Bill. That is the clause that we are debating, which allows for the dissolution of the Assembly on a two-thirds vote. But in our view that provision does not really solve the whole problem in an adequate way. Objection has often been made to the situation operating in this House whereby the Prime Minister of the day can secure a tremendous political advantage by obtaining a dissolution at any time of his choice. That objection may carry less validity at the moment because at least it is felt to be the case that in 1970 and 1974 the Prime Ministers who chose to exercise their power by having a premature dissolution of Parliament suffered at the polls as a result.
However, the principle remains the same and we ought not to be recreating that situation in Edinburgh. The fact is that the provision in the clause does give power to the First Secretary to dissolve the Assembly, in effect, because assuming that the First Secretary commands a majority in the Assembly—one must make that assumption, because if he did not he would cease to be First Secretary—he will be able readily to procure a vote of the Assembly seeking its dissolution if he comes to the conclusion that it would be convenient for his party to hold a General Election at that moment.
The only qualification provided by the clause is that the First Secretary must be able to command a substantial majority of the House—a two-thirds majority—if he is to be able to secure dissolution in those circumstances to suit what he regards as his electoral convenience. But the argument put forward in the last debate in favour of flexibility was not really designed to ensure that the Executive should be able to choose a convenient moment to have an election. That was not the objection to the previous inflexibility. We did not complain that it did not give the Executive the opportunity to have an election at a time of its own choice.
7.30 p.m.
The real problem, which is not adequately dealt with by the clause, is one of deadlock. Suppose the Executive loses the confidence of the Assembly but there is a majority able to put in power and sustain an Executive of a different


political complexion, or a coalition comprising a group of alternative political complexions. There might well then be no majority in favour of dissolution. The Assembly could be faction-ridden. We have heard much talk about there already being in Scotland a multi-party system to a much greater extent than in this House. It would not be difficult to imagine there being no majority, still less a two-thirds majority, in favour of dissolution. If the powers granted to the Assembly are as substantial as those proposed in the Bill, the Government of Scotland could come grinding to a halt. If it did not, the Assembly might find that it was
unable to reach decisions on matters requiring urgent decision and that the government of Scotland is gravely affected as a result",
to quote the amendment. It is to meet that problem that we seek to persuade the Committee of the merits of the amendment.
I acknowledge that there are difficulties in any solution. We should listen sympathetically to any alternative. At present the problem is not solved. There is no way to secure the dissolution of the Assembly if there is a deadlock.
In the United Kingdom as a whole the Prime Minister would secure a dissolution. The only alternative way to bring that about, in our view, is to enable the Secretary of State, in such a situation—necessarily prescribed in a fairly generalised way, but none the less fairly clearly prescribed—to dissolve the Assembly. As a further protection, we have included in the amendment the provision that the Secretary of State would not be able to dissolve the Assembly on his own say-so when there has been deadlock, but would need a prior resolution by each House of Parliament in favour of his draft order. I stress "each House", because it means that the House of Lord would also have to be satisfied that the circumstances laid down in the clause, as amended, applied.
The advantage of that provision is not party political; it is that if the Secretary of State were seeking to persuade the House of Commons to dissolve the Assembly, not because there was genuinely a deadlock but because it suited him for some reason, the House of Lords would be able to take an independent and possibly more objective view. With this formula, it would be highly unlikely

that the Secretary of State would intervene in a partisan way, because to do so would almost certainly be totally counterproductive.
If the Secretary of State sought to dissolve the Assembly when there was clearly a majority able to carry through its proposals, and did so simply because he did not like the effect of what it was doing, it would not require a sophisticated electorate to see—even if he were able to persuade both Houses to support so brazen an executive act—that he was in contravention of the provisions of the clause as amended. The electorate would see that he was abusing the power given to him and that both Houses were abusing the discretion given to them, if they supported him. It would be so obvious that the Scottish Executive would be likely to secure an increased majority at the polls in Scotland that no Secretary of State in his senses would be tempted to follow such a course.

Mr. Dalyell: I have spoken before about the fertile seeds of pointless conflict between Scotland and this House. I would not press the analogy ton far, but does not the hon. Gentleman agree that in some ways the potential here resembles the conflicts in Australia between Kerr and Whitlam?

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman knows that I share to the full his concern about the potential conflicts resulting from the Bill and the view that within the scheme of government proposed for Scotland there is no way of resolving or even substantially diminishing those conflicts. But we are unhappily saddled with the grim task of seeking to make the best of a bad job. All that I am saying is that in the Bill as it stands there is a glaring flaw, to which an attempt should be made to provide an answer. In outlining our answer, I said that I agreed that any solution was redolent of difficulty, but at least we are providing a solution where the Government provide none.
Although at first blush our solution would seem to be redolent of conflict, I think that it is not as redolent of conflict as it may seem to the hon. Gentleman. The reason is that any attempt to use the power in anything other than good faith would be so blatant, and its harmful consequences to anyone seeking


to use it in that way accordingly so apparent, that the Secretary of State would almost certainly eschew any temptation to abuse the power. Coupled with that is the protection, limited as it may be thought to be, of the requirement for an order of each House. Both Houses, or at least this Chamber, may on occasion be ready to follow the guidance of the executive contrary to their inclinations, as perhaps happened last week in giving the Bill its Second Reading and passing the guillotine motion. But I do not believe that when the circumstances in which the Secretary of State may dissolve the Assembly are specifically and clearly defined, and when those circumstances do not exist, both Houses would be party to an abuse of that power.
I recognise the possibility of conflict even in that way, but it is less than might appear at first sight. In any event, there is a gap that must be filled in some way. In spite of last year's debate, it is not adequately filled by this new clause, because it does not provide for a situation in which there is deadlock and no two-thirds majority in favour of dissolution. The best proposals that we have been able to devise are those in Amendment No. 174, which I therefore commend to the House.

Mr. Sillars: The Opposition Front Bench has said that this was the best that it could devise, but it is not terribly good. It is full of potential points of conflict between the Scottish Assembly and this House. The question whether the Assembly is dissolved is a matter of major political judgment.
If we had the present situation, many people in Scotland would object, and certainly all the Assemblymen would object very strongly, to a political decision of that magnitude being made by someone who is not in the electorate in Scotland, as the Secretary of State is not at present. There would be just as much heat generated in Scotland as there was in Australia when the Governor-General intervened on that decision. Most people reviewing Australian politics would have said before the event occurred that no one would act in that partisan way, because of the backlash. Nobody would have thought anyone would take that sort of risk.
No one in this House would forecast a Secretary of State acting in a partisan way, but one only has to look around the Chamber and look at the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), who has demonstrated time and time again that he can be very partisan indeed and can make most preposterous suggestions. For example, although the United Kingdom is a unitary State, and the hon. Member never ceases to proclaim it, he has been known to say that we should have hanging laws in Scotland but not in other parts of the United Kingdom. A person with that turn of mind could not be trusted with the clause as it would be amended by the Opposition.
As for the proposition that the House of Lords would be, in the words of the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), more independent and possibly more objective—that is ludicrous. It is also most unlikely to be accepted by the vast majority of Scottish electors, who have a special regard for the House of Lords, and it is not a kind regard. It is a remarkable proposition that people who have no basis at all for intervening in Scottish affairs should be brought in from the backwoods to make part and parcel of a decision that should be made in Scotland at the end of the day, simply because it is such a major one.
Amendment No. 53 is a probing amendment to find out the Government's thinking in relation to the idea of fixed-term Scottish Assemblies. This is not just a nut-and-bolt issue; it contains very important principles. I agree with the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby that considerable political difficulties may be caused by the fixed-term principle. We are witnessing in Scotland a situation in the Glasgow District Council in which the Labour Party did not win an overall majority of seats, so it got in a huff and refused to form an administration, despite the fact that it was the largest party. The Scottish National Party was a minority and it did not feel able to form an administration for that reason. The Conservatives were also a minority, but a larger one, and they said they would form an administration. However, it is an administration that cannot carry any majority decisions through the Glasgow District Council.
7.45 p.m.
These are some of the difficulties that exist. Such things matter in local authorities and they will matter even more in the Scottish Assembly. There will be a great effect on Scottish politics if that sort of situation developed in a fixed-term Scottish Assembly.
In facing the problem of a fixed-term Assembly we must consider the obstacles against the Scottish Secretary or First Secretary, or whatever he is to be called, in doing what the Prime Minister does here—dissolving Parliament and calling an Election when it is to his advantage to do so It does seem unnecessarily restrictive to argue that two-thirds of all Members of the Assembly must vote for a dissolution, even taking into account seats that are vacant and those Members who are not present for the debate. Yet the Bill insists that there should be this two-thirds majority before the Assembly can decide to dissolve itself.
The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby, in moving the amendment argued at one stage that the First Secretary, given a majority position, could fairly easily dissolve this Assembly; the only qualification was that he got a two-thirds majority. I would not think that that was a minor qualification, given the multi-party position that the Scottish Assembly is likely to reflect. Then, only a minute or two later, the hon. Member was arguing that the multi-party system would make it almost impossible to get a two-thirds majority. That might be the case.
I hope that the Secretary of State will consider at a later stage slightly amending the Bill to make the qualification that of two-thirds of the people attending the Assembly and voting in that Division. That might make a difference of only two or three, or perhaps five or 10, but that could be the vital difference in breaking a deadlock in the Scottish Assembly. Or, why not have a qualification that the decision could be made by half the members of the Assembly present plus one voting to agree that the Assembly should be so dissolved? I have deployed this as a probing amendment in order to ascertain the Government's thinking because they have considered the position in various parts of Europe and the Commonwealth where fixed-term systems operate.

Mr. Graham Page: I join with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire

(Mr. Sillars) in questioning this figure of two-thirds. In Amendment No. 169 I seek to reduce the number to half—an ordinary majority. My amendment is a probing one to try to find out the nature of the Scottish Assembly as the Government see it. It is not to be like a county council, nor is it to be like our Parliament. It is to be something in between. Therefore, a formula is set down here which, I believe, will be extremely difficult to operate.
When we consider the voting we have seen in this Chamber in the last two days with Members going into both Lobbies, I wonder how this fromula would apply to us. One would have to think out another formula to take account of the double voting.
I imagine that what will happen is that if the Scottish Assembly does not run its full four years, the Executive, in the form of the First Secretary, will wish to dissolve it at some stage. He will wish to dissolve it only if he finds that he has not a majority. Therefore, what is the point of the two-thirds? How will he get a resolution of the Scottish Assembly with two-thirds voting in favour of dissolving when he cannot command two-thirds in the Scottish Assembly—or, if he can command it, will he see any need to dissolve at all? This is where the formula will be difficult to apply.
The alternative is Amendment No. 174 moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittany, but I think that possibly we may be up against some difficulties there. We would be leaving it almost entirely to this Parliament to decide on the dissolution of the Scottish Assembly. That may be tight in principle if one believes that the Scottish Assembly must be something like a Committee of this House. I understand that is not within the present Bill. One would need a substantial number of alterations to bring that about.
Personally, I am in favour of the amendment moved by my hon. Friend. I should like to see a Scottish Assembly controlled by this House. I think that possibly I am in a minority in thinking that and therefore I am faced with trying to make this formula in Clause 4 work in a reasonable way. It can work in a reasonable way only if it depends on a majority resolution of the Scottish Assembly. If one asks for two-thirds


in the one case, if the First Secretary can command two-thirds in the Scottish Assembly, he will not want to dissolve it. But if he wants to dissolve it because he has not a majority, he will not be able to get the two-thirds to dissolve it.
The formula is fraught with deadlock all the way through. It might work by a simple majority resolution, but I still have my doubts. To a great extent my amendment, Amendment No. 169, which seeks to change the figure of two-thirds to a figure of one-half, is a probing amendment, and I hope that at some stage the Minister will intervene so that we may have a chance to return to these points. If he waits until the end of the debate because of the guillotine procedure, there will be no opportunity to take up these matters other than by our pestering him with questions to find out what is in his mind. Therefore, I hope that he will intervene at some earlier stage in the debate.

Mr. Dalyell: I should like to concentrate on this issue of deadlock. I believe then that any action by the Secretary of State would be liable to misinterpretation. One can think of an abundance of reasons why people would want wilfully to misinterpret any action on dissolution. Therein lie the seeds of grave conflict.
In a deadlocked situation it would be a question of parties coming together in a coalition. I do not want to go back to the previous debate, but the fact is that we are talking about a situation of coalition. This Committee should question the proposition that, if this legislation is passed, never again will British parties be the same. I do not argue whether that is good or bad, but it should be clearly understood. Where there is a coalition that is Labour-Tory, Tory-SNP, Labour-SNP or whatever it may be, because of the position that would obtain in an Assembly—and many politicians in Scotland would be more interested in an Assembly than they would be in Westminster—there is the recipe for the breaking up of the British party system.
There may be those who take the view that they would like nothing better than to see the break-up of the British Labour and trade union movement. That is not my view. I think that it is a recipe for conflict, and therefore we should understand that one of the effects may well be

the break-up of the British party system. Things would never be the same again if there was the kind of coalition we are discussing. So long as that is understood, I shall leave my case there.

Mr. Powell: All the debates on this Bill are turning out to be a huge exercise in the demonstration of one central proposition. It is a proposition which has already been mentioned a number of times, but is none the worse for that—namely, that in a unitary parliamentary State it is not possible to establish an elected legislature for a part of that State. In previous debates we have had what might be called the massive proof of that proposition, indeed the knock-down proof, to which deservedly the appellation of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has been attached. It consisted in demonstrating that when such an Assembly has been created, there is not a rational form in which the electorate of that part of the kingdom can be represented in this House.
Day after day on the previous time round and many hours on this time round have been spent on that massive form of the proof of the underlying proposition. But now we come to this delightful thing, to this little gem of a clause. I would like also to call Amendment No. 174 a gem of an amendment; but I think that its authors are not entirely unconscious of its weakness. Yet it is like the setting of a precious jewel: we are unable to admire the gem unless we have the somewhat less valuable setting of the amendment in which to frame and present it. The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) must not suppose that I lack appreciation or gratitude for the service he performed in moving the amendment.
The clause provides us with what in some mathematical quarters is called the "elegant" proof of the proposition. We have discovered that it is impossible, having set up this Assembly, to dissolve it when we want to do so without falling into irretrievable conflict with the proposition that used to be Clause 1 of the Bill but, happily for the freedom of our continuing discussions, somehow disappeared in the course of yesterday's proceedings.
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) who appears to have been called away to more weighty, but I am


sure not more interesting, matters, said that he hoped to learn in the course of this debate about the thinking of the Government. We need not wait for the intervention of the Secretary of State for Scotland, although we are looking forward to it, to be able to reproduce with fair certainty the central part of the thinking of the Government on this subject.
The Government, in drafting the Bill, had got the Assembly set up with an Executive supported by a majority of the Assembly, just like Her Majesty's Government and this House. Then somebody asked, "If there is a deadlock, how will they manage to get out of it? How will they manage to get an election?" Thereupon someone else—whether in Committee or a Sub-Committee of Cabinet or some little confabulation between the Lord President and his ad hoc friends—said "What is the problem? Do it the way that we do it." He went on to ask, "What is wrong with the Chief Executive—or whatever he may be called—who exercises the Royal Prerogative for other purposes, as it says in Clause 21(3), using the Royal Prerogative to dissolve the Assembly? That presents no problem at Westminster. We are sent for by Her Majesty; and when it pleases her, by Proclamation she sends us away again and gets another set, whatever may be her disappointment to find a certain overlap between the two."
8.0 p.m.
So that was all right, and there was general satisfaction and a nodding of heads, until a legally and constitutionally minded member of the confabulation said, "Are we then saying that the Chief Executive is to have power to advise Her Majesty and to give advice that she, constitutionally, must follow, just as she must follow the advice of her Prime Minister in the United Kingdom? Is that the sort of person that we are establishing as the Chief Executive in Scotland? Will he then be Her Majesty's Minister, advising her upon the exercise of one of the remaining and major prerogatives of the Crown?"
Then a certain silence, chill and hesitant, fell upon those excogitating the Bill, because they saw what lay before them and glimpsed the gulf that was opening at their feet. They would be establishing one of Her Majesty's Gov

ernments; an Executive in which there would be collective responsibility—it is quite clear that that is the intention, because in Clause 21 there are arrangements for the Chief Executive to reshuffle his Cabinet and sack his junior Ministers; that will all be found in Clause 21(4)(5)—an Executive with collective responsibility and whatever his name, a Chief Executive who would be Prime Minister.
Thus the group found themselves invited to contemplate a Prime Minister who would be Her Majesty's Minister and would have the natural and, indeed, indispensable function of all Prime Ministers to advise Her Majesty on dissolution. It was at that point that, although they had looked at the coin before, the penny dropped. They realised that such a Government would indeed be one of Her Majesty's Governments, and that the country over which that Government presided could, by definition, not be part of the United Kingdom; for there cannot within the United Kingdom be exercise of the prerogative on the advice of a Minister who does not share in the collective responsibility of Her Majesty's Ministers in the United Kingdom—not just on the matters set out in the Bill, but on the overriding, Government-creating and Government-destroying prerogative of the dissolution of Parliament.
I am sure the House will understand now why I say that this is an elegant. miniature proof of the same old proposition, the same old impossibility. For when one has dissolved the unitary parliamentary State by creating in one part of the realm an elected legislature, and a Government supported by that legislature, one discovers that the thing will not work because it lacks something necessary to its functioning. That something is the possibility of resolving a deadlock by recourse to the electorate.
In that quandary there were only two courses that lay open to this little conclave whose thinking—to use the word of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire—we have been privileged to follow, rather like archaeologists or historians reconstructing an episode in history and working out what had happened.
When our conclave shrank back from the chasm into which they had peeped there were two courses


that they could take. One was to resort to constitution-making—and that is what some of the amendments seek to do, to set up an elaborate system of conditions and arrangements, a sort of clockwork mechanism for getting the Assembly out of a deadlock created by political facts. Nevertheless, all clockwork needs not only a maker but—as Dean Paley demonstrated to the instruction of Oxford undergraduates generation after generation—[Interruption.]—I am glad to hear signs of agreement from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop), who is himself no mean theologian—but also someone to wind it up afterwards, somebody who will exercise a responsibility exterior to the clockwork.
So the Government were driven from that apparent first alternative back to the only course that remained open to them. That was to place the power in Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, responsible to this Parliament of the United Kingdom. Thereupon all the Scots, or at least the pro-devolutionists—such of them as are surviving—said, "That is terrible. There is no devolution about that. That would not mean real freedom because we should still be tied to the apron strings of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and its Parliament." Just so. That is what all these debates are about.
So it can be seen, whether one looks at it en gros or whether one fixes a watchmaker's microscope to one's eye and looks at the details of the Bill, the same pattern—or almost lack of pattern—meets the gaze everywhere. What we are attempting to do in the Bill is a great pretence, the pretence that the impossible can be framed in legislative form. It is only fair that the labours of this Committee, curtailed as they are—and much to our loss—by the grim two-handed engine, should be enlivened from time to time by little interludes of this sort when we can contemplate in a gratifying instructive, yet amusing, form the same solemn truth that we are attempting to challenge by the Bill as a whole.

Mr. Russell Johnston: It is hard to know what to say to follow that, but I must say at least a couple of things. It is extremely likely—I suspect this from

the look of weariness fleeting across the Secretary of State's face, and in spite of his abundantly false smile and the fact that he denies it—that on every clause we shall be told that that clause, whatever it may be, will lead to the break-up of the British party system and the trade union movement. No doubt we shall also be told, possibly in even more eloquent fashion, that each clause proves conclusively that it is impossible to have supportive legislatures in a parliamentary State.
I want simply to direct my few remarks to the question of fixed-term Parliaments, which is what these amendments are directly about. In the first instance my colleagues and I believe that fixed-term Parliaments are better than Parliaments which are free to dissolve at any time. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, as though it were part of the Holy Writ, that an indispensable prerogative of the Prime Minister is the power of dissolution. I do not agree that it is an indispensable power of the Prime Minister. That is the way we have handled these matters in this place for a long time. That does not mean that they must be handled like that for ever. Many countries operate fixed terms, and many systems of administration and government do that both here and abroad.
Given that one accepts the desirability of a fixed term, we must accept that the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) would mean that we could not have a fixed-term Parliament in which a simple majority for the Government of the day enabled dissolution to take place. That is not a fixed term at all.
We then come to the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), and the same applies there. He requires the support of only a half—not even of a majority—of the members in order to secure dissolution.
We then come to the major proposition from the Opposition Front Bench. That was recomended to us—I think that is the proper word—with the exciting terminology of the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), who said that his amendment was not quite as redolent with conflict as it appeared. I think that was one of the most persuasive arguments for the adoption of an amendment that I have heard for a long


time. Of course the amendment is redolent with a great many obstacles, some of which have been pointed out. Obviously the reason for dissolution is not necessarily the loss of a majority. One might wish to dissolve the Parliament if the political circumstances were appropriate and one could take advantage of them. That might well happen in normal circumstances in mid-term.
The Government have carefully written in the provision that when premature dissolution takes place there would be another election at the end of the four-year term, and that would be a considerable inhibiter and brake on such action being undertaken. But with two years to run one could visualise circumstances in which a political party felt that it was to its advantage to build up a majority, compared with waiting for another two years. It is not so long since we had two General Elections in one year.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend the Member Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and I appear to be the only occupants of the Government Back Benches, but we would be glad to hear whether this new change was made on Liberal advice.

Mr. Johnston: It has always been difficult for me to understand when the Government have followed advice. I can only say that we are in favour of the change, but that does not prove that the Government have taken our advice.
8.15 p.m.
The wish to have a General Election, therefore, need not arise from a deadlock; it could come about through a desire to take advantage of a political climate at a particular time. To do as the Opposition have done and merely to transfer responsibility to this place does not remove the reasons and does not lessen the likelihood of deadlock in the Assembly. As was so cogently pointed out by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, this would create real difficulties in the Westminster parliamentary structure, if the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby genuinely believes that the House of Lords would fulfil the rôle of objective referee which he has rather optimistically portrayed for it.
Let us take a practical example of a Labour Prime Minister in the House of Commons who is in conflict with the

House of Lords. It the Prime Minister is considering the possibility of dissolution of the Scottish Assembly, but it is objected to by the Opposition in the Assembly, who, let us say, are Conservatives and who then encourage the House of Lords to take a different view from the Government, one is immediately in a considerable crisis at Westminster.

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) has blurred over the fact that it is not just a question of proposing a dissolution on any grounds that suit the majority in the House of Commons or, for that matter, in the House of Lords. In our amendment there is a definition of the circumstances in which that could be done. The amendment makes sure that that can happen only if there is a deadlock. If the Government are given an opportunity, for political reasons, to put a resolution before the House, that is one thing. If it is empowered by the Act to do so only if there is a deadlock in the Scottish Assembly, that is prescribing an objective test. Of course, the system can be abused, but it would have to be a pretty blatant abuse by the Government and by each House of Parliament. That is a possibility, but I hope that we have sufficient confidence in our institutions to think that that is unlikely.

Mr. Johnston: That is not an unreasonable way of putting it, but while the amendment clearly prescribes that where the Assembly is unable to reach a decision on matters requiring urgent decision that is a deadlock, a deadlock can be created. The optimism that the hon. Member has demonstrated in our existing institutions, while admirable, is not such as would make me confident enough to put such a prescription into the Bill.
It is undoubtedly difficult to try to prescribe what one might call bolt holes or ways out of deadlocks in fixed-term Parliaments. There is this difficulty witty out any doubt. The Government's prescription necessitates a degree of agreement which many hon. Members—the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby may well chide me back on this—would feel was difficult to achieve. I am referring to the proportion of two-thirds. But given that, I agree, from the other side of the argument, with the hon. Member


for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) that in the Assembly one will see the development of a new kind of attitude and approach to the operation of the Assembly's procedures. That could be an effective way out in a deadlock, but it could not be taken advantage of for political reasons by a Government with a very small majority who wished for their own advantage to call an election very quickly.

Mr. Budgen: The amendments demonstrate very well the widely differing views held in the House of Commons on the fateful and fatal ambiguity at the centre of our consideration of the Bill. It is still unclear whether the Government regard the Scottish Assembly as being an independent Parliament or wish to describe it as a puffed-up county council. As we continue our considerations it is plain that they wish to describe it as a puffed-up county council when they speak to the packed Benches in this place, and as an independent Parliament when they are campaigning in Scotland.
The amendments illustrate the dilemma in which each Member finds himself in trying to understand what the Bill is about. On the one hand, Amendment No. 53, in the name of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) is plainly designed further to enhance the powers and importance of the Scottish Assembly. It is plainly trying to give it an independent voice in deciding when it may end its life if that he necessary. On the other hand, Amendment No. 169, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) is an honourable attempt to make this bodged-up idea work in a slightly more efficient and easy manner. I prefer Amendment No. 174. I prefer it in very much more vigorous terms than my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) was able to advocate in introducing it.
My hon. Friend spoke first of the possibilities of conflict within the Assembly. However, the possibilities of conflict are much wider than that. There is the prospect of conflict between a party in the Assembly, or the Assembly itself, and the Westminster Parliament. I know that Clause 62—I hope that this will not reinspire the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)—raises the

whole question of the effect of Community obligations and international obligations upon the Scottish Assembly. I know that those obligations may in certain circumstances be described as not being devolved matters. However, when we think, for instance, about the present effect of the Community fishing policy upon the Scottish people, we realise that there is a fruitful area for conflict between a Scottish Assembly and Westminster, and then with the Community.
I welcome Amendment No. 174, because it gives total discretion to the Secretary of State. It is no good saying "This power will be exercised only in certain circumstances and always in a reasonable manner". I am sure that that is true, because the essence of our unwritten constitution is that there is a general corpus of opinion within the two Houses of Parliament that prevents excessive and unreasonable use of power by any party that has temporary control of either House. However, to say that there is something within the amendment that places some sort of external constraint upon the Secretary of State is untrue. If we consider the first leg of the amendment, the first condition is
that the Assembly is unable to reach decisions on matters requiring urgent decision.
It may be said in respect of some decisions that if they are not decided within a week those concerned have been unable to reach a decision on matters requiring urgent decision.
The second part of the amendment provides that the
government of Scotland is gravely affected as a result.
Neither leg of the amendment is capable of an objective assessment by relation to certain outside criteria. Both legs are concerned essentially with the criteria that are subjectively designed by the Secretary of State subject to his responsibility to this place, or to another place if he happens to sit there.
I welcome the amendment because it breaks into the ambiguity at the centre of the Bill. It says to the Scottish Assembly "You are no more than a puffed-up county council. You are a subordinate body. If there is any conflict, it will be resolved by the decision of the Secretary of State."
The amendment does not deal with the extra layer of government. It does


not deal with the ridiculous extra bureaucracy that the Assembly is imposing on the happy people of Scotland. However, as long as the Assembly lasts—if it comes into being I hope that it has a short and disagreeable life, for I do not wish to see it breaking up the unity of the United Kingdom—

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman may wish it a short and disagreeable life, but some of us think that if it is established it will be difficult to bring it to an end.

Mr. Budgen: I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's view. My first preference is that the Assembly should not be born. If it is born, I believe that it may well walk down the road towards separation. I go further than saying "may well"; I say that it is overwhelmingly probable that it will lead to separation.
It is my hope that by introducing amendments such as Amendment No. 174 and retaining the powers of Westminster over a subordinate legislature, we shall resolve in part the dishonest ambiguity that lies at the heart of the Bill. We may at least demonstrate that it is no more than a puffed-up county council.
When, for instance, my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) talks about demanding more powers and extending the influence and authority of the Assembly in Scotland, we in this place are able to point to the ultimate fallback power of the Secretary of State, which in my opinion is a power that, if enshrined by the acceptance of the amendment, will be unconstrained by any of the objective criteria, and that conforms to the essence of our unwritten constitution, in that it changes, bends and varies so that the government of the country can be carried on without the breakable constraints of a written constitution.

Mr. Ian Gow: My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) has described the proposed Scottish Assembly as a puffed-up county council. That view could not be held from studying the provisions of Part I of Schedule 10.
It is most extraordinary that the effect of Clause 4, which has as few friends as any of the three preceding clauses which we have considered very briefly in Com

mittee, read in conjunction with Clause 3 should be that, if the Assembly should be dissolved prematurely, either following a two-thirds majority, as the Bill provides, or, if Amendment No. 174 should be passed, in the circumstances envisaged by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), a newly elected Assembly should be elected only for the remainder of the four-year period.
It is an astonishing proposition that the people of Scotland should have inflicted upon them all the burden and expense of what would really be a General Election campaign to provide an Assembly which might last for only a month or two.
If that is felt to be fanciful, one has only to look at the Explanatory Memorandum which precedes the Bill, where it is spelt out, and in the clearest terms, as follows:
Following a premature dissolution the newly elected Assembly will serve only the unexpired period of the original four year term.
What is the thinking of the Government who say that, if one goes through all the paraphernalia of an election to the Assembly, those so elected following a premature dissolution will hold office only for the remainder of the initial four-year period? What can the justification be for saying that those who were elected on this basis can hold office only for the period of literally a few weeks?
8.30 p.m.
If we are invited to choose between the draftsmanship of the Government Front Bench and that of my right hon. Friend, there may not be a great deal to choose between the two. Certainly on balance I think that Amendment No. 174 is an improvement, because in the situation envisaged in subsection (1)(b) where two-thirds of the members of the Assembly are required to vote for their own dissolution it would be perfectly possible to have an Assembly which was wholly unmanageable but where two-thirds of its Members could not be found who were anxious to terminate their period as Members of the Assembly.
Indeed, if we had a system in the House of Commons where we would dissolve ourselves only if there were a two-thirds majority, that would be a situation in which we would be very likely to have a five-year period of Parliament.

Mr. Powell: We would be all Liberals.

Mr. Gow: My right hon. Friend says that, but I hope that I would not fall into such dangerous company. The procedure which is envisaged by the Bill, that there could be a two-thirds majority voting for the dissolution of the Assembly, is one which, to say the least, is exceedingly improbable. That is why I believe that the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) is worthy of support, because, although the test which is applied is certainly a subjective one, it would be open to the courts to seek to interpret whether it appeared to them—

Mr. Powell: No.

Mr. Gow: I find myself in respectful disagreement with my right hon. Friend. If the Secretary of State for some quite different reason wished to dissolve the Assembly, it would be justiciable whether it appeared to him that the Assembly was unable to reach decisions. The Secretary of State might have quite different reasons for wishing to dissolve the Assembly.

Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. I totally agree with him. It would not be open to the courts to intervene once the matter was decided by each House of Parliament, but if the Secretary of State was inclined to put an order before the House of Commons in that form and did so in bad faith, and if it was possible to establish that no reasonable Secretary of State directing himself to the proper considerations and applying the test in the Bill could possibly have reached that conclusion, action could be taken in the courts to restrain him from putting the order before the House.
That would be on exactly the same basis as was done in the Tameside case, where a similar point arose and the Secretary of State appeared to have power, but the discretion, although comparatively subjective, none the less was such that it was conceivable in the circumstances to satisfy the courts that no reasonable Secretary of State could have exercised the power in that way. In that circumstance the amendment has greater force and validity than has perhaps been allowed for, because, although necessarily sub

jective in form, it does not simply leave it totally to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Gow: I am grateful to have the support of my hon. Friend, who played such a distinguished part in defeating the Secretary of State for Education and Science on the Tameside affair. Not only do I have the support of my hon. Friend but also I have the support of the Court of Appeal for the proposition that I am advancing.
Clause 4 is one of the most extraordinary clauses in the Bill because it envisages a situation which in reality will never occur. It is not in the nature, above all, of Scotsmen—I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) in his place—to wish to put an end to their remuneration when they have an opportunity of continuing it. The prospect of Members of the Assembly actually resolving by a two-thirds majority to bring their employment to an end is so improbable as to be impossible.
As we actually come to examine the reality of the situation that will occur in Scotland should the Bill become law, we find that this clause, like the others, turns out on examination to be in practice another example of the unworkable features of the Bill. That is why we shall continue to try to frustrate its passage through the Committee. I hope that we shall support Amendment No. 174, because it is at least an improvement upon the Government's drafting.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I should be very sorry if I prevented the Secretary of State from rising to speak, because I am one of those who believe that it would have been very helpful to the Committee if the Secretary of State had intervened in the debate a little earlier so that those of us who have been somewhat confused by the Government's thinking on this matter could hear from him how they have got themselves into this extraordinary situation. We might then have been able to comment more effectively on the clause. Since we are in Committee, if the Secretary of State is unable to deal with the many cogent points that have been raised on both sides of the Committee, as I fear will be the case, I hope that there will be opportunity for some of us to come back to him and ask him—

The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): I should like to reassure the hon. Gentleman. I am confident that the hon. Member will be able to dispel any confusion.

Mr. Griffiths: Thank you, Sir Myer. The question is not whether I shall be able to dispel the confusion, although I hope that it would not be impossible for me to do that. The duty here lies on those who have created it, and certainly they are now sitting with the Government Chief Whip, I notice, on the Treasury Bench.
All of us who sat in the Committee during the speech of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) have had today a rare treat of eloquence, logic and humour, which the House of Commons is seldom able to hear. I can only regret that so many hon. Members were not present to hear his quite devastating indictment of this clause. I was particularly impressed with his allegorical description of how he believed, within the confabulations of the Cabinet, this particular arrangement was constructed. I suspect that he was precisely right in recognising that, at some stage at least, it was understood, within the confabulation, that while the Cabinet would have liked the power to dissolve the Assembly to reside in Scotland, as soon as they reached the point at which that would happen they had, of course, to recognise that they would virtually be creating an alternative power, a new State, within the United Kingdom. Consequently, of course, they have recoiled from it.
But the logical recoil from that proposition is the one represented by Amendment No. 174, which brings the ultimate power to dissolve the Scottish Assembly back here to Westminster. The Government, unfortunately, did not accept that consequence of their own decision, so what they have done is to create a most extraordinary constitutional notion, namely, that the only power there shall be to dissolve the Scottish Assembly shall be in the Scottish Assembly itself. That is a most extraordinary proposition—that the Assembly shall dissolve itself.
Then the Government had to provide some mechanism by which the Assembly would reach that conclusion, and therefore, for reasons which have not been explained, they have put in the magic

proportion of two-thirds. This means that if one-third of the Members plus one are not prepared to be dissolved, the Assembly cannot be dissolved. This, of course, is another extraordinary proposition.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that there is the major difficulty here that, assuming there is an Assembly at all, even people such as myself think that it would be very difficult to have it dissolved from London, for then the issue would become like the Lords versus the Commons, or any other emotive issue, and the details would be forgotten in an atmosphere of "what Westminster did to us".

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Precisely. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. But, of course, we are caught either way. If the power to dissolve is to be restored or is to be in Whitehall or in Westminster, as the amendment suggests, then, as he rightly supposes, there will be the most enormous conflicts. There will be a sort of Lords versus Commons conflict between the Scottish Assembly and this place. There is no doubt of that at all. But, equally, what are we to say if it becomes manifestly the case that the Assembly in Scotland is not able to conduct its business and the Secretary of State of the day is manifestly dissatisfied with what is happening? Suppose that the Scottish Prime Minister is frustrated in all his policies. None the less, one-third of the Members of the Scottish Assembly plus one can prevent any dissolution from taking place. That is the absurdity of this situation.
Let us suppose that the Secretary of State for Scotland is convinced that the Assembly should go; that the Scottish Prime Minister believes that it should go; that it is perfectly clear that its remaining there is doing no good service to anyone. What is the mechanism for getting rid of it, for dissolving it, for going to the people? The position, apparently, is that if one-third of its Members plus one are not prepared to dissolve, it cannot be dissolved. This is an absurd proposition.
But then there is the further difficulty. What is to be the position of the Scottish Chief Executive? He bears the responsibility for his programme. He has campaigned on it. He may well have won


a majority. He is dealing with housing, with health, with local government, and with all the many things that affect the Scottish people. As we all know, there are vicissitudes in politics. There may have been a profound change in the attitudes of the Scottish people and they may be totally opposed to what is going on. Suppose that the Scottish Chief Executive recognises this and believes that the Assembly, in the public interest, ought to be dissolved? Imagine the illogicality of the situation. If the Chief Executive has two-thirds of the Assembly on his side, then, of course, he need not dissolve, but if he has not two-thirds on his side there is no way in which he can procure a dissolution.
I think that this mathematical problem needs to be underlined. The only way in which the Chief Executive, the Prime Minister, can achieve a dissolution is if he commands two-thirds of the membership. But, if he commands two-thirds of the membership, why should he have a dissolution?

8.45 p.m.

Dr. M. S. Miller: I do not see the hon. Gentleman campaigning against the system in this House, where 534 Members might not want Parliament to be dissolved, but one man can have it dissolved.

Mr. Griffiths: The position here is clear. No matter what the majority of Members might believe, if the Prime Minister approaches Her Majesty and advises her to dissolve Parliament, it is dissolved. That is the difference.

Mr. Gow: I am not sure that my hon. Friend is on sound constitutional ground, because to say that means the end of the Royal Prerogative. Her Majesty is not bound to accept the advice of Her Prime Minister in all circumstances. There are some circumstances, which we can all envisage, when it might be right for Her Majesty not to follow the advice of Her First Minister.

Mr. Griffiths: I think that my hon. Friend is right, and in so far as I overstated the case I withdraw.

Mr. Timothy Raison: There is still some argument about whether the Prime Minister has this right

anyway, quite apart from the position of Her Majesty. Until not all that long ago it was within the decision of the Cabinet as a whole, rather than the Prime Minister, whether Parliament should be dissolved. It was Sir John Simon who, by sleight of hand, transformed it into a decision by the Prime Minister.

Mr. Griffiths: One of the more fascinating features of the debates on the Bill is the amount that one learns about entirely different matters in the course of discussing various clauses. I am obliged to my hon. Friend, and I am sure that he, too, is right.
The point that I want to make is a simple one. If the Scottish Prime Minister commands two-thirds of the Members of the Assembly there is no logical reason why he should seek a dissolution. But if he does not command two-thirds of the Members and seeks a dissolution he will not get the vote through anyway. That is the mathematical illogicality of this situation.
The Government have provided a means whereby a Scottish Prime Minister can dissolve the Assembly when he does not need to, namely, when he has a two-thirds majority, but they have provided him with no means of dissolving the Assembly when he lacks that majority. That is precisely when he would wish to dissolve, when he has lost his majority.
I put it to the Secretary of State for Scotland that it is absurd to provide mathematically within the Bill for a position that will not achieve what is needed by the Scottish Chief Executive at a time when he forfeits his majority. That must be the reason for dissolution, and the mechanism that the Government have provided is absurd.
That is why I prefer—as many of my hon. Friends do—Amendment No. 174. I do not believe that it is the right answer, but one cannot have the right answer when one has the wrong question. However, it is a better answer than the one provided by the Government, because at the very least it provides, in effect, a prerogative, and dissolution ought to be by prerogative and not by particular mathematical proportions.
Amendment No. 174 is more sensible, It is certainly not the right answer, but at least it provides some definition of the


circumstances in which the Scottish Assembly shall be dissolved. The language of the amendment is clear. It must appear to the Secretary of State
that the Assembly is unable to reach decisions on matters requiring urgent decision and that the government of Scotland is gravely affected as a result.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) speaking with the experience of Thameside, said that this matter could be justiceable, and perhaps that is one of the failures in the drafting of the amendment.

Mr. Britton: I suggested that that was a merit. Because the matter is justiciable, it would prevent the Secretary of State from operating the clause on a capricious, arbitrary and political basis, rather than on the basis of an objective assessment of whether there was dead lock in the Assembly.

Mr. Griffiths: That might be right, and it might be sensible, but the dissolution of an Assembly ought to be by prerogative, and not be the subject of a great deal of reasoning. The prerogative is either a prerogative, or it is not. Once one lays down in statute a set of reasons that must be met, one removes the essential feature of a prerogative.
Therefore, in believing that this amendment is better than the Government's proposal, I am bound to say that it is a very modest improvement and cannot possibly meet the real constitutional and political requirements because we start off with the wrong question. We start with a false premise, namely, this clause.

Mr. Gow: Has my hon. Friend addressed his mind to the following point? Let us suppose that under the amendment the Secretary of State decided to dissolve the Assembly but his decision was then challenged by the courts, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) rightly said it could be. We would then have a hiatus. The matter could go to the High Court, then the Court of Appeal and then to another place. This whole process might take months, particularly during the long vacation.

Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friends are continuing to shoot more and more holes

in the tissue that we have before us. I wish to put the point very simply to the Secretary of State, who I hope will clarify all this confusion in the speech that he is about to make. The advantage of Amendment No. 174 is that it is far more in keeping with our constitutional practice. It is understood, and, above all, it will allow the prerogative to be exercised in a manner which, in my view, is constitutional. Above all, it allows the Scottish Parliament to be dissolved only by a Minister who is accountable to what we were told—until Clause 1 disappeared—was the supreme authority of the United Kingdom Parliament. However, Clause 1, for better or worse, never meant what it said. It was always a grotesque misrepresentation of the facts and it is as well that it has been removed from the Bill.
None the less, the advantage of Amendment No. 174 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) is that it makes clear what the rest of the Bill does not make clear, namely that the supreme authority remains in this House. That is precisely the point. The Government have put the supreme authority to dissolve an elected legislature in the hands of that legislature itself, with the sole proviso that one-third of its Members plus one do not oppose it. That is illogical. It would be far better to give that responsibility to a Secretary of State, who is accountable to this House.
I turn now to Amendment No. 169 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) and myself, among others. I do not believe that reducing the proportions from two-thirds to one-half would resolve this thorny problem. I say only that it is nearer the mark than the two-thirds-one-third division put forward by the Government. If a Chief Executive, feeling that he needs to dissolve the Scottish Parliament, must obtain two-thirds support from the Members before he is able to do so, the odds are that, on most occasions, he will not succeed. But if the number that he must achieve is only half of the Members plus one, which I think is the intention of my right hon. Friend, he is far more likely to be able to achieve the result that he seeks. I believe that Amendment No. 169 is much more sensible than the arrangements proposed by the Government.
The problem here is that the Government, faced with the dilemma of how to bring about the dissolution of the Scottish Assembly without, at the same time, creating a power comparable with that of, and able to challenge, the Secretary of State himself, and this House itself, have created a bogus mathematical arrangement whereby only the Assembly in Scotland can dissolve itself. That cannot be right. I am sure that it is constitutionally bad.
I hope that the Secretary of State, in reply to the debate, will at least give us some comfort by saying that the Government have taken heed of the points that have been made, that they will remove the clause, and that they will think again and come back with something better.

Mr. Harry Gourlay: From some of the comments that I have heard in the last two days it would appear that, in the words of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), the Government are in a dilemma. That is quite wrong. Indeed, another word used by the hon. Gentleman to describe the situation was "confusion". Both "dilemma" and "confusion" are figments of the imagination of Opposition Members.
The Scotland and Wales Bill made no provision for the dissolution of the Assembly. This Bill, partly in response to representations made by Opposition Members in debates on the Scotland and Wales Bill—they criticised the fact that there was no power of dissolution—contains such a provision. The Opposition have now become the party of Tweedledum and Tweedledee. When they get what they want, they do not want it
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has a querulous expression on his face. I am stating a fact. The hon. Gentleman may not have asked for this provision, but the Conservative Party did.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman misdescribed the record, save only in one respect. Did anyone in any part of the Committee suggest that the mechanism for dissolving the Scottish Assembly should be the Scottish Assembly itself?

Mr. Gourlay: I am not suggesting that was the situation. The Government have decided that this should be the procedure, and I support it. Indeed, I shall state my reasons for supporting it.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) talked about its being ridiculous to suggest that Scotsmen, of all people, would vote by a two-thirds majority to do away with their own salaries. We had an example of that in this Chamber in the last Session. If the vote had been successful and there had been a majority, Members would have done away with their salaries. It is preposterous for the hon. Member for Eastbourne to suggest that Members of a future Scottish Assembly would fail to go into the Division Lobby to dissolve the Assembly without having regard to their personal positions. The hon. Gentleman imputed that we in this Chamber are more holier than the Members of a future Scottish Assembly.

Mr. Gow: The hon. Gentleman has completely misrepresented what I said. We have no power to dissolve Parliament. If the Government Front Bench were invited to dissolve Parliament, I am sure that among the factors that they would take into consideration—it is only human nature—would be whether some of them would find it difficult to get jobs if they were not re-elected. That is natural. That is human nature. The point that I made was that we do not have the power to dissolve Parliament. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should ask the Secretary of State whether he would vote now to dissolve this Parliament.

Mr. Gourlay: It may be that in theory, as Members of Parliament, we do not have power to dissolve Parliament. Nevertheless, if the Prime Minister were to be defeated on a motion of confidence, only one result would follow; he would take the honourable course of going to Her Majesty and tendering the resignation of his Government. That is the method by which Parliament dissolves itself. It is all very well bringing in niceties, but those niceties are not comparable with what is suggested in the Bill.
We in Scotland think that the jury system in England is absolutely preposterous. We believe that our jury system is much fairer than the English system. In Scotland a simple majority of the jury


can convict. In England there is the preposterous position that the jury is locked in a chamber until such time as a sufficient number are persuaded that they have to convict. That produces an artificial situation.
9.0 p.m.
A recent commission on the law in Scotland has recommended that the number on a jury should be reduced from 15 to 12 and that a simple majority of seven to five should convict. It recommended that if there is an even vote of six to six acquittal should follow. That is logical. In this Bill the Government are proposing a higher proportion. They say that two-thirds of the Members of the Assembly must be willing to support dissolution before the Assembly can be dissolved.
Most Opposition speakers start from the wrong premise. If it were seen, either now on the Bill or in the future when an Assembly is elected, that this House was unduly interfering in the devolved powers of the Scottish Assembly it would drive the people towards separation quicker than anything else. That is why we support the Bill.
We also support the proposition to give elected Assembly Members the right to dissolve the Assembly within a four-year period if they so wish. It is not a question whether the Executive wishes the Assembly to be dissolved but whether two-thirds of the Members of the Assembly wish it, perhaps, if they disagree with the Executive. I believe that that is fair.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the hon. Member accept that the two-thirds proportion is difficult to justify? Surely an Administration with a two-thirds majority would be able to get its legislation through without difficulty. It does not need the power of dissolution unless it has a major clash with Westminster. Surely the case for dissolution is valid only if the Administration cannot get its legislation through.

Mr. Gourlay: No one is suggesting that dissolution would arise only if the Executive could not get its legislation through. The reason for a dissolution is a matter for the Members of the Assembly. All that this House is doing is to give them that power, which they did not have in the previous Bill. Whether the majority required should be

two-thirds or one-half is a matter of opinion. I would not be unattracted to the proposition that it should be one-half rather than two-thirds.

Mr. Raison: Can the hon. Member explain why there should be a power of dissolution at all? He has not addressed himself to the basic argument.

Mr. Gourlay: I have said that I support the right of the Assembly to dissolve itself. After all, the Members will be elected representatives with a considerable amount of power. If they have the capacity and responsibility of legislation in Scotland surely they should have the same powers, or relatively the same powers, as Members of this House. By expressing a vote of no confidence in the Executive by a two-thirds majority they should have the right to dissolve the Assembly.

Mr. Raison: Why should not the Assembly operate on the same basis as local authorities and the American Congress, which do not have the power of dissolution? There is no iron law about it.

Mr. Gourlay: The analogy of local authorities is not a good one. The local authority is an administrative rather than a legislative body. The people of Scotland want to have control over these developed powers. Any attempt, particularly by English Members, to prevent this Bill from reaching the statute book will do more than this Bill will do to drive the Scottish people towards separation. I am convinced, as a Scottish Member of Parliament for 18 years, that the Bill will do more to keep the United Kingdom united than any action of the Opposition.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): It might be convenient if I were to say one or two things now. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Gourlay) has reminded us, the question of premature dissolution of the Assembly was debated during our discussions on the Scotland and Wales Bill. That Bill did not provide for any power of premature dissolution. It simply provided for a fixed term and assumed that the Assembly itself, and the administration at any particular time, would he able to solve any political problems that might arise during the term of the Assembly.
There is a perfectly respectable argument for maintaining that position. It is, after all, a position that is maintained in many other legislatures in other parts of the world. By and large those legislatures find ways, as practical politicians normally do, of living with the situation in which there is no premature dissolution.
For a number of practical reasons, quite apart from the question of principle, our first view when considering the matter with regard to the Scotland and Wales Bill was that we should simply provide for a fixed-term Assembly and not allow the various political complications that could arise from premature dissolution. There are practical problems, for example, in terms of the dates of Assembly elections in relation to local government elections and, perhaps, elections to this House and the rest. Apart from any argument there may be on principle, that argues strongly for a fixed-term election for the Scottish Assembly. That was what was in the original Bill.
However, during the debate on this matter there were considerable representations from different parts of the House, and from hon. Members who were not in favour of the Scotland and Wales Bill that it was unsatisfactory to have an Assembly in a deadlock position for what ever reason—either as a result of by-elections or the result of the breakdown of a coalition. The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) believes that this will happen in the Scottish Assembly and that for whatever reason we might have an Administration that would find it very difficult to administer and legislate in a sensible and effective way. There were very strong pressures during the debate on the Scotland and Wales Bill to provide some mechanism for premature dissolution.
The Government considered these representations, as we said we would, and took account of them, as we did of other representations, during the interval between the failure of the timetable motion and the bringing of this Bill before the House. Having looked at the matter again, we decided that there were strong arguments to provide for some form of premature dissolution. It is a balanced matter. One could well take the view that the Assembly should simply have to work out its own problems if it were a fixed-term Assembly

and that there should be no power of premature dissolution at all. But, of course, we had in mind the arguments of practicality, deadlock and the rest advanced by hon. Members in the previous debate.
We also had in mind the fact that in this country there is a tradition of premature dissolution although it is done in a particular way which we believe—as I shall explain in a moment—would not be appropriate for application to the Scottish Assembly. But the question whether there should be premature dissolution or not is one of judgment. Having reconsidered the matter, I can only say that it was our judgment that we should provide for it in this Bill. In doing so we were responding to the arguments put forward in the previous debate. Many of these arguments came from the Opposition Benches.
If we believe that there should be premature dissolution, is necessary to provide a way in which that objective can be achieved. One way is to allow the Secretary of State to take the decision, as Amendment No. 174 would provide. That was not the kind of solution that came from most Conservative Members who took part in the debates in February. I am not making an argument of that, but there were Opposition Members who said, for example, that it should be done simply by the Chief Executive, as he was then called, or the First Secretary, as he would be called under the present Bill. Some said that it should happen as a result of a motion of confidence. A variety of suggestions were put forward in February. I make the point simply as a matter of fact that the mechanism that the official Opposition have chosen in their amendment was not the only one advanced by Conservative Members then.
I am not pretending that there is any obvious right way by which we can provide the mechanism of dissolution. It is possible to take a view about different methods. There are arguments for various solutions. But in principle I consider it highly undesirable that the decision should be taken by the Secretary of State, because the Executive and Assembly Members should effectively take the decision.
The amendment's requirement for an order in the House of Lords would simply make the matter a political football, even


if the general arrangements for the Secretary of State's intervention would not lead to that, as I believe they would. In principle, the amendment is wrong. It would place a considerable and unnecessary burden of responsibility on the Secretary of State. Whatever the circumstances were, he could not easily avoid charges of political malpractice, particularly if it seemed that a further election to the Assembly was likely to favour his party, whether Conservative or Labour. It would be an extremely uncomfortable and unnecessary position for the Secretary of State to be in.

Mr. Graham Page: Would not that also arise under the clause as it stands? It says that the Assembly
shall be dissolved by order of the Secretary of State".
The Secretary of State is still responsible to the House. He would have to make the order by Statutory Instrument, and I presume that it would be debatable in the House.

Mr. Millan: It would not be debatable in the House. If it were, that would defeat the purpose of this mechanism. It would effectively take it out of the hands of the Assembly and put it into the hands of the House. That is what we wish to avoid.

Mr. Graham Page: If he is to make an order under the Bill, the Secretary of State must make it by Statutory Instrument. It is true that in this case he does not have to lay it before the Scottish Assembly or Parliament, but if the Secretary of State has to act in a formal way by making a Statutory Instrument, surely he will be answerable for it in this House.

Mr. Millan: I have learnt from experience that the Secretary of State is answerable in this House for practically everything he does, whether or not it is done by Statutory Instrument in a formal way. That will certainly apply here. Subsection (1)(b) says that the Secretary of State is under an obligation to make an order. The word used is not "may" but "shall". We are providing for the Secretary of State to be the instrument of the decision of the Assembly, for reasons which—

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Raison: Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that this dissolution

was reached immediately before a General Election in the United Kingdom. It could be argued that it would be extremely inconvenient and damaging to have two sorts of election at the same time. Would the Secretary of State be able to hold the matter over or leave it on one side, or would he be compelled to dissolve the Assembly immediately, possibly with damaging results?

Mr. Millan: Because of the possible difficulty of clashes with election dates there is a practical argument against premature dissolution. There is no absolutely ideal answer to this problem which would satisfy every hon. Member. When we provided no premature dissolution at all we were asked by many Conservatives to provide it, and one of the aspects that we had in mind was the difficulty about election dates. There is a certain amount of flexibility in subsection (2), just as we have provided a certain amount of flexibility in Clause 3, on the holding of ordinary elections.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The Secretary of State has generously accepted that he is accountable to this House. Let us suppose that he makes his order and the House disagrees. How can the Scottish Assembly be dissolved in those circumstances?

Mr. Millan: There will be no parliamentary procedure, as I have said. If there were a parliamentary procedure it would defeat the purpose of allowing responsibility to rest essentially with the Scottish Assembly. That is where we believe that responsibility should rest.
There is another argument against the Secretary of State's having responsibility, quite apart from the argument that he might be charged with using it in a politically contentious way. The other argument is that if he had responsibility there would be a possible encouragement to irresponsibility on the part of certain Members of the Assembly in a situation of potential deadlock, when there was no obligation on them to produce an answer. They would simply say that they were passing over the problem to the Secretary of State and asking him to make a judgment about dissolution.
Opposition Members have expressed concern about possible areas of conflict between the Assembly and the Secretary of State, and that would certainly be one


of them. We have adopted a specific and categorical position that if there is to be the power of premature dissolution the responsibility and initiative for it basically should rest with the Assembly itself.

Mr. George Cunningham: I would like confirmation on two points. In the case of a Statutory Instrument not being subject to affirmative approval in the House, if the House passes a Prayer requesting the annulment of the order that annulment takes place. If the House passed a Prayer in favour of the annulment of the Secretary of State's order, it would be illegal for him to annul the order that he had made.
Secondly, presumably in the most extreme circumstances—where there were colossal reasons, in the view of the United Kingdom Parliament, why the provisions of this clause should not be pursued—it would be possible by principal legislation in this House to override the provisions of Clause 3. Is that the case?

Mr. Millan: To take the second point first, it will be possible by amending legislation to amend the Bill. Whether the House would be sensible to try to legislate in the middle of some kind of political difficulty between the Secretary of State and the Executive and the Assembly would be another matter, but it would be possible for the House to do that.
On the first point, there are some Statutory Instruments which are not subject to any kind of parliamentary procedure of either the affirmative or negative sort. That is what is in mind here.
I repeat the simple point that, unless we do that, we shall not leave the problem in the hands of the Assembly; we shall take it out of its hands in an indirect way and put the responsibility on Members here. We are clear that we do not want to provide a mechanism that is at the initiative of the Secretary of State we want a mechanism that is at the initiative of the Assembly itself.

Mr. Brittan: On this specific point, if what the right hon. Gentleman is saying is that there should be no parliamentary intervention in any circumstances and that the rôle of the Secretary of State is purely mechanical, why does he need to have a rôle at all? Why not delete the words

"by order of the Secretary of State' and simply say, "The Assembly as constituted from time to time shall be dissolved if the Assembly resolves in the circumstances specified"? If that were the case, the Bill would enact itself without any confusion.

Mr. Millan: The reason for that is simple and it was dealt with by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) a little earlier in the debate. I do not want to go beyond that now.

Mr. Brittan: What is that reason?

Mr. Millan: It raises questions of Royal Prerogative. We are not providing here for an initiative to be taken simply by the Assembly itself without a mechanism involving the Secretary of State.

Mr. John Lee: Is my right hon. Friend saying that in relation to this constitutional act the Secretary of State is in the position of the Crown by constitutional use, in that it always accepts the advice of the Prime Minister in respect of dissolution? Is my right hon. Friend saying that he will be no more than a dignified rubber stamp?

Mr. Millan: I am saying that the mechanism is activated by an order introduced by the Secretary of State. It is provided in this Bill generally that there is not access for Members of the Scottish Executive to the Crown in any particular matter.
Having decided that the mechanism should basically be one involving the decision and responsibility of the Assembly and not of the Secretary of State, I should now like to describe what the Bill provides and say something about Amendments Nos. 53 and 169, which are directed towards this specific mechanism and not towards removing it and introducing another.

Mr. Brittan: I wish to revert to the earlier matter to try to clarify the situation. I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would explain what the Royal Prerogative has to do with this at all. If there is a specific statute which seeks to provide that the Assembly can itself dissolve if there is two-thirds of the Assembly to do so, why cannot the statute say the same thing without interposing the Secretary of State, because he


is given no say in the matter? If the statute did say that without any reference to the Crown at all, it would be doing no more than many other statutes do. It seems to me that unless the Secretary of State is able to provide an adequate explanation, his reference to the Royal Prerogative is a complete smoke-screen further to obscure an already very obscure provision.

Mr. Millan: I have already said what I have to say on that matter. We believe that this is a matter in which there should be some function, even if only a formal one, for the Secretary of State.
I was coming to the question of the mechanism and the question of a majority in the Assembly, and also to the subject of the length of the term of the new Assembly which will be elected after a premature dissolution. That point has not been mentioned in the House much during the debates on this clause, except by the hon. Member for Inverness. How-ever, if I mention it, it may answer some of the difficulties to which hon. Members have referred.
The Bill provides that the new Assembly, following an election and premature dissolution, will run for only the remaining portion of the four-year term. It will not start a new term. I think that that point was particularly at the back of the mind of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). There will be no incentive for an Assembly Administration with a two-thirds majority to provide for premature dissolution by means of the votes of that majority, because there would be nothing that it could gain from that. The length of office of the new Administration would simply expire at the time that it would have expired in any case. That is not just a powerful disincentive; for all practical purposes, it excludes the possibility of the Administration's deciding to have an election simply at a time that it finds suitable. The length of time is, of course, provided for as being not beyond the length of time of the Assembly then constituted.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I accept that, but since the condition preceding any dissolution would be that the Assembly had become deadlocked and unable to proceed, there are two possibilities. If the

Assembly were deadlocked, how could there be a two-thirds majority to dissolve it? If there were a two-thirds majority available to the Chief Executive, why would he recommend dissolution anyway?

Mr. Millan: What the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has omitted from his calculation is that—and given the present state of the Tory Opposition here I am not surprised that Conservatives have omitted this simple fact from their calculations—it is usually the Opposition rather than the Government who are anxious to have a premature dissolution and a new election. I know that the present Opposition are not anxious for an election, but has it escaped their minds that the two-thirds majority does not have to be made up of the Administration? If there were deadlock, and a keen Tory Opposition of 10 Members—or whatever it will be in a Scottish Assembly—I dare say that their 10 votes would be cast for premature dissolution and a new election.
It is perfectly true that with a two-thirds majority made up of the Administration and anybody else, there would be no incentive for premature dissolution, but in the terms of the Bill that would not necessarily apply. We do not provide for a 50 per cent. simple majority because in those circumstances the Government might take the view that an election would be extremely suitable, even though it could not provide them with a longer term of office, because it could provide an enhanced majority. We do not take the view that the House should consider that an election in such circumstances would be a desirable feature of the arrangements for the Assembly, because that would be allowing an election to take place for the purpose of political advantage and manoeuvre. We are not willing for that to happen.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Gow: Is the Minister telling the Committee that the only reason for including in the Bill the provision that an Assembly elected before the expiry of a four-year period will last only for the remainder of that period is to discourage it from dissolving itself?

Mr. Millan: The House is very ambivalent about this. Hon. Members are pointing out all the difficulties that exist


if there is no power of premature dissolution, but they are not willing to face the practical problems involved in having that power. The clause faces those problems.
The provision for a two-thirds majority prevents the mechanism from being activated simply for party advantage. I think that that deals with the point about Amendment No. 169 and, for that matter, Amendment No. 53. Of course it would be possible to rule that the majority should not be two-thirds but should be 60 per cent., or 75 per cent., or some other percentage. We believe that two-thirds is just about the right practical level at which we shall achieve the main purposes of the clause.

Mr. Percy Grieve: Before the Secretary of State leaves Amendment No. 174, does he agree that as the clause stands, in any future conflict the last word will rest absolutely with the Scottish Assembly?

Mr. Millan: The drafting of the clause is such as to place a responsibility on the Assembly to take the effective decision about premature dissolution. But the clause seeks to do it in a way that discourages the overactive use of the provision for simple party political advantage. That is why we are providing a shorter term for the new Assembly after the election, and also why we have provided for more than a simple majority in the vote that is to be taken in the Assembly itself.

Mr. Powell: Would it be true, then, to say that an Executive that has lost the confidence and support of over half the Assembly has no remedy unless it succeeds in losing the support of two-thirds of the Assembly?

Mr. Millan: Not at all, because where there is a deadlock and the Executive wishes to carry on in a minority—I stress that there is no obligation on the Executive to carry on, but we shall come to that later in the Bill—and when there are questions of coalitions, or understandings, and so on, and practical political questions which the Government believe the Assembly should determine, there are no grounds whatever for the House to take the view that those political difficulties can be settled only by the

intervention of the House or the Secretary of State.
It will be for the Assembly itself and for the Executive in the last analysis to solve these problems. If, as I hope, it will solve these problems without the need for premature dissolution, the clause will never apply. If there are circumstances in which, as a matter of practical politics, it is not possible for the Assembly to create an effective administration, this mechanism could come into play, and I believe that it would be effective.
The previous Bill provided no mechanism for premature dissolution. This Bill, partly in response to arguments put forward on the Scotland and Wales Bill, provides for premature dissolution. It does it by putting the initiative and responsibility for that in the hands of the Assembly, but at the same time it provides certain safeguards, which cause us to believe that we shall not be handing over an unfettered power on the part of the Scottish Executive to call an election at any time that it may desire for its own political advantage.
With that explanation, I recommend the Committee not to accept any of the amendments.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Mr. Alexander Fletcher (Edinburgh, North)
rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: I thought that the Committee was ready for the Chair to put the question.

Mr. Fletcher: I am sorry, Sir Myer, if the arrangements that you thought were taking place had not actually happened. I think that it is right for me to reply to the explanation that the Secretary of State for Scotland has sought to give the Committee.
The Secretary of State has offered an innocent explanation but he must know from the questions that he was asked during his reply that the Committee is far from satisfied. The right hon. Gentleman has attempted to define the Government's intentions by saying that the idea to give the Assembly the ability to break any deadlocks within itself would not be used by a majority party in the Assembly as an opportunity to go to the country in the event of it thinking that a fair wind existed. However, the possibility of that course being taken robs the Assembly of the discipline of a fixed term.
The amendment provides an alternative to Clause 4 and gives discretion to another body—in this case, the Secretary of State, acting with both Houses of Parliament. It works in accordance with the principle that the Government are trying to build into the Bill—namely, that although the Assembly will be elected for a fixed term the system of prior dissolution is desirable, which I understand is the usual feature of a Parliament elected for a fixed term.
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) objected to such a rôle being played by the Secretary of State and Parliament, and no doubt would call it outside interference even before the Assembly is established. [Hon. Members "Hear, hear."] To judge by the cries of "Hear, hear", it seems that even before the Assembly is established there are those who cannot wait altogether to divorce it from Westminster.
The Bill tries to treat the Assembly as an integral part of the Government of the United Kingdom and of this Parliament. Therefore, the House of Commons should have a continuing rôle to play in the Assembly's affairs. The powers that we are proposing for the Secretary of State and for Parliament will prevent a deadlocked Government from merely sitting it out when they cannot govern. That is a situation that existed not so many months ago in the House of Commons. Some people think that that situation is not very far from the surface at any time in this place.
Some Members have asked why we voted to divorce Westminster from Edinburgh last night. We did so for an obvious reason that had nothing to do with the divorce between Edinburgh and Westminster. It would have been quite hypocritical for the House of Commons to allow the clause to remain when one has only to read through the additional clauses to realise how dishonest Clause I was.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Mrs. Winifred Ewing
rose—

Mr. Fletcher: No. I shall not give way to the hon. Lady because I have not seen her in the Chamber this evening. Incidentally, if this subject is now suddenly so important, I am surprised that we have not had a contribution from any nationalist Member during the debate.
I turn to the contribution from the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). The right hon. Gentleman described the clause as elegant proof of the tyranny of the Bill. Although we have not got a Down, South question to match the West Lothian question, our debates have been graced by Down, South elegance and I and many other hon. Members have appreciated my right hon. Friend's contributions.
That elegance was particularly clear when my right hon. Friend pointed out the difficulty that the Government would face if the Secretary of State for Scotland were to have direct access to Her Majesty for dissolution or any other purpose within the Assembly. This is a fascinating example of the inadequacy of the Government's thinking, dominated as it is by sheer political expediency born out of fear rather than any deep considerations of the constitutional worth and the implications of the Bill. This evening's debate has indicated the difficulties the Government find themselves in.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fletcher: I have already made clear to the hon. Lady that I have no intention of giving way.
The hon. Members for Inverness (Mr Johnston) and for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and others were concerned about the possibility of conflict between Edinburgh and Westminster. Conflict is, of course, inevitable, but it should be our purpose here to minimise conflict and to try to ensure that during this Committee stage we take steps to achieve that.
We shall not achieve that end by going further to sever the Westminster connection as the nationalists and one or two other hon. Members would do Surely we who believe in the House of Commons and in this Parliament should remember that we were elected to the House of Commons to protect the interests of Parliament. We shall not do that by giving ground time and time again to the demands of some hon. Members. We cannot shirk our responsibilities to the House of Commons for the unknown attractiveness of a House that is still to be set up.
The Secretary of State said that the decision to dissolve should be taken by the Assembly. Our amendment would not prevent the Assembly from expressing the desire to dissolve, but it would give Parliament the power to satisfy itself that this would not be for any frivolous or party reason. Surely that is in the best interests of the good government of the United Kingdom and of Scotland. It is much better that Parliament should have this rôle rather than that the Secretary of State revert to being a glorified Governor-General of Scotland, a rôle

much criticised during the debates on the Scotland and Wales Bill and one which everyone in the House of Commons thought, perhaps until this evening, had been removed.

The Secretary of State has achieved one thing tonight. He has added to the West Lothian question a new Craigton question and he has proved equally that it is incapable of being answered.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 153, Noes 192.

Division No. 17]
AYES
[9.43 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Hayhoe, Barney
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Aitken, Jonathan
Hodgson, Robin
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Alison, Michael
Holland, Philip
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Baker, Kenneth
Hurd, Douglas
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Benyon, W.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Raison, Timothy


Berry, Hon Anthony
James, David
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir peter


Brittan, Leon
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Jessel, Toby
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Brotherton, Michael
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rhodes James, R.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Joseph, Rt Hon. Sir Keith
Rifkind, Malcolm


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Buck, Antony
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Budgen, Nick
Knight, Mrs Jill
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Bulmer, Esmond
Knox, David
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Lamont, Norman
Sainsbury, Tim


Carlisle, Mark
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Lawson, Nigel
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Channon, Paul
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shepherd, Colin


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Silvester, Fred


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sinclair, Sir George


Clegg, Walter
Litterick, Tom
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Luce, Richard
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Cope, John
Macfarlane, Neil
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Costain, A. P.
MacGregor, John
Speed, Keith


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Sproat, Iain


Dunlop, John
Marten, Neil
Stainton, Keith


Dykes, Hugh
Mates, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Mather, Carol
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Mawby, Ray
Stokes, John


Emery, Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stradling Thomas, J.


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Mayhew, Patrick
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tebbit, Norman


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mills, Peter
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Forman, Nigel
Miscampbell, Norman
Townsend, Cyril D.


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Vaughan, Dr Gerald


Fox, Marcus
Moate, Roger
Wakeham, John


Fry, Peter
Molyneaux, James
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Monro, Hector
Wall, Patrick


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Montgomery, Fergus
Walters, Dennis


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Weatherill, Bernard


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Morgan, Geraint
Wells, John


Grieve, Percy
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Winterton, Nicholas


Griffiths, Eldon
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Grist, Ian
Neave, Alrey
Younger, Hon George


Grylls, Michael
Neubert, Michael



Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Sir George Young and


Hannam, John
Pattie, Geoffrey
Mr. Peter Morrison.


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Percival, Ian



Haselhurst, Alan
Pink, R. Bonner





NOES


Allaun, Frank
Ashton, Joe
Bain, Mrs. Margaret


Anderson, Donald
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Atkinson, Norman
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Haywood)


Armstrong, Ernest
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bates, Alf




Beith, A. J.
Ginsburg, David
Oakes, Gordon


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Golding, John
Ogden, Eric


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gourlay, Harry
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Boardman, H.
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Ovenden, John


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Grocott, Bruce
Pardoe, John


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Park, George


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Parker, John


Bradley, Tom
Hatton, Frank
Pavitt, Laurie


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Penhaligon, David


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Heffer, Eric S.
Price, William (Rugby)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Henderson, Douglas
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Buchan, Norman
Hooley, Frank
Reid, George


Buchanan, Richard
Hooson, Emlyn
Roderick, Caerwyn


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Horam, John
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Rooker, J. W.


Campbell, Ian
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Roper, John


Canavan, Dennis
Hunter, Adam
Rose, Paul B.


Carmichael, Neil
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cartwright, John
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Janner, Greville
Sever, J.


Clemitson, Ivor
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
John, Brynmor
Sillars, James


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Silverman, Julius


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Skinner, Dennis


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Small, William


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Kerr, Russell
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Kilfedder, James
Snape, Peter


Crawford, Douglas
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


Crawshaw, Richard
Lambie, David
Stallard, A. W.


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Lamborn, Harry
Steel, Rt Hon David


Cryer, Bob
Lamond, James
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Lee, John
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Dalyell, Tarn
Litterick, Tom
Stott, Roger


Davidson, Arthur
Loyden, Eddie
Strang, Gavin


Deakins, Eric
Luard, Evan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Dempsey, James
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Thompson, George


Doig, Peter
McCartney, Hugh
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Dormand, J. D.
MacCormick, lain
Tierney, Sydney


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Tinn, James


Duffy, A. E. P.
McElhone, Frank
Tomlinson, John


Dunn, James A.
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Torney, Tom


Dunnett, Jack
Maclennan, Robert
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Eadie, Alex
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Edge, Geoff
Madden, Max
Watt, Hamish


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Magee, Bryan
Welsh, Andrew


English, Michael
Marks, Kenneth
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Whitlock, William


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Meacher, Michael
Wigley, Dafydd


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Flannery, Martin
Mitchell, Austin
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Molloy, William
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Woof, Robert


Ford, Ben
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Moyle, Roland



Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Freud, Clement
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Mr. James Hamilton and


George, Bruce
Newens, Stanley
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Gilbert, Dr John
Noble, Mike

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

ELECTIONS TO ASSEMBLY

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 54, in page 3, line 3, leave out from 'who' to first 'at' in line 7.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this we may take the following amendments:

No. 55, in page 3, line 6, leave out from 'constituency' to end of line 10.

No. 170, in page 3, line 6, after 'constituency', insert:
'and resided within that Assembly constituency on the qualifying date for inclusion on the electoral register'.

No. 57, in page 3, line 7, after '(b)', insert 'life'.

Mr. Page: I move the amendment in order to discuss, or address my remarks to, Amendment No. 170, because I think that this is the main amendment in this group.
These are amendments to subsection (1) of Clause 5, which sets out the persons who are entitled to vote as electors


at an Assembly election. Paragraph (a) describes those electors as
those who, at the date of the election, would be entitled to vote as electors at a parliamentary election in the parliamentary constituency comprising the Assembly constituency.
As we know from other parts of the Bill, a parliamentary constituency may include three Assembly constituencies. If one turns to Schedule 1, part II, paragraph 9, it is there said:
A parliamentary constituency, the electorate of which is more than 125 per cent. of the electoral quota, shall comprise three Assembly constituencies.
There might be the occasion when there is an election to the Assembly and the electors will be called upon to vote in each Assembly constituency, but according to the wording of Clause 5(1)(a) an elector will be able to make a choice of three Assembly constituencies, because all that he is required to show the returning officer is that he is an elector in the parliamentary constituency in which the Assembly constituency is situated.
10.0 p.m.
It is probable that under another part of the Bill one could not use all three votes together, applying the Representation of the People Act, but, as the clause stands, any person who was on the electoral rôle within a parliamentary constituency that contained three Assembly constituencies—as many might do given the directions to the Boundary Commission in Schedule 1—could choose in which Assembly constituency to vote. I cannot think that that is the intention of the Bill, but those are the words in it.
We are ruled by the guillotine. Although I could enlarge upon the other amendments, this is the vital one. It is an amendment to a complete error in the Bill that has been entirely overlooked in the drafting. I should think that, without further delay, the Minister could say that he accepts the amendment.

Mr. Dalyell: This is the occasion when we can first legitimately raise the whole issue of the position of those who regard themselves as Scots—because they come from Scotland or are first or second generation—[HON. MEMBERS: "The next amendment."] Is it not to be taken at this time?

The First Deputy Chairman: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to Amendment No. 59.

Mr. Dalyell: In that case, I withdraw my comments.

Mr. John Smith: I am a little surprised that the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) did not make any reference to his other amendments. It may be that on mature reflection he has decided that they are not appropriate. It is odd, however, that he has not chosen to refer to them. One odd feature is that one amendment seeks to debar hereditary Peers from voting in Assembly elections by allowing only life Peers to vote. I cannot understand the logic behind such a proposition.
Some of the amendments are incompatible, but the right hon. Gentleman has chosen to focus on Amendment No. 170 which, as I understand it, seeks to ensure that electors are those residents in the Assembly constituency on the qualifying date for inclusion in the electoral register. Persons eligible to vote in parliamentary elections have to be resident in the constituency on the qualifying date.
The intention of the amendment is to ensure that only those resident in the Assembly constituency may vote in the Assembly elections. This is not spelled out in Clause 5(1), but it will be achieved by the order that will be made under Clause 5(3) dealing with the conduct of elections. Clause 5(4) provides that the order may apply any provision of the Representation of the People Acts. It can apply, with necessary modifications, the provisions of the Acts relating to entitlement to vote by reference to residence on the qualifying date and the provision that people cannot vote more than once in the same constituency.

Mr. Graham Page: I do not intend to rely on an order that may be made at some future date. The whole of this clause is wrongly written. The latter part of the clause says that the Statutory Instruments that may be made shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House, but we do know what happens to Prayers against Statutory Instruments. They may never be heard. We rely entirely on whether the usual channels can find time for


them. Such an order may never be discussed in the House and the Bill may be left in this way to be corrected by an order. It is not good enough.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I hope that the Minister of State will give us an assurance that at a later stage he will try to sort out the Bill.
On behalf of the Opposition, I must say that the hon. Gentleman's initial remarks in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) were offensive and uncalled for. We have 59 minutes left to get from Clause 5 to Clause 17 and many important amendments on the establishment of a new form of government for Scotland will not be discussed. The Minister chided my right hon. Friend because he did not deal with all the amendments that he had tabled. That is to rub salt into the wound of the Opposition, who feel bitterly aggrieved because, due to the jackboot tactics of the Government, we are unable to discuss all these matters.
The subsection refers to those who would be entitled to vote living in the parliamentary constituency. Would it not be sensible to alter the words to what my right hon. Friend proposed in his amendment?
The Minister said that he would sort this matter out in an order. Would it not be sensible to sort it out in the Bill? The important issue is that a person should vote only in the Assembly constituency in which he resides. Would it not be easier and sensible to put that in the clause?
If the Minister wants to do it by order. why are the words "Parliamentary constituency" in the clause? Why can it not say "The people who can vote in an Assembly election are those who live in an Assembly constituency"? That would be sensible. Why cannot we alter the words in the Bill to give effect to what we know the Government and the Opposition want?

Mr. John Smith: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) sometimes gives the impression that guillotine motions have not been passed on any Bill by any Conservative Government in our history. That comes oddly from the Opposition, as I have had
occasion to remind them, when the European Communities Bill, under a guillotine, went through both Houses of Parliament after a deliberate decision by the Conservative Government not to accept any amendment in either House. I do not propose to take lessons from the Opposition on the constitutional propriety of how a Government or an Opposition should conduct themselves under a guillotine motion.
The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) tabled four amendments. It is perfectly in order for me to pass comments on them in two sentences. I realise that we are under the guillotine, but the point is whether we should write the provision into the Bill or whether the Secretary of State should make provision in line with expressed Government policy, by making an order. That is a common provision in Bills. It is subject to the annulment procedure and is a sensible way of dealing with the matter. It is not a question of sorting anything out. I have stated the Government's intention of using the order-making procedure which the Secretary of State has for that purpose. I think that we can achieve what we want in that way. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman's point about the necessary consequence of reading the Bill being that people would be entitled to vote in three Parliamentary constituencies is not valid.

Mr. Graham Page: I must press the Minister on this matter. Unless I get a firm undertaking that he accepts that some amendment is necessary and that an order will be made in the spirit of the proposed amendment, I shall not withdraw it. The Bill will be left in complete confusion. Will the Minister give me the undertaking that I seek?

Mr. John Smith: The right hon. Gentleman cannot have understood what I said. In my first intervention in the debate I said that the intention would be achieved by the order. I have given the undertaking that an order will be made. I thought that I had already made that clear. However, if there is any doubt about it, I repeat it now.

Mr. Graham Page: On that undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. George Gardiner: I beg to move Amendment No. 59, in page 3, line 10, at end insert—
'(c) those who, at the date of the election, have registered their names on a special register to be maintained in each parliamentary constituency in Scotland of electors born in that constituency but currently resident within the United Kingdom outside Scotland'.
The issue that we are seeking to raise in this amendment covers a question that came before the House when we debated the Scotland and Wales Bill in the last Session. It concerns the position of the expatriate Scot. The discussion on this matter at that time was in the context of the proposals for a referendum. There was then strong pressure from the Scots, whom we all have living in our constituencies, to have a voice in determining whether the provisions of the Bill should finally take effect in Scotland. That discussion was in the context of the electoral roll for the proposed referendum. I hope that, despite the tight guillotine, time will be found for pressing that issue again.
This evening we are on slightly different territory. We are dealing with the claim of expatriate Scots living in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to have a voice in the proposed elections to the Scottish Assembly. We know how much we are all indebted to the many Scots who have moved south of the border for either long or short periods for their contribution to the life and strength of the United Kingdom. Indeed, we take that as proof of the strength and vitality of the Union which we have been seeking to preserve in our amendments.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House probably have in their constituencies active groups of Scots who band together to keep the flame of their Scottish identity alive. There are the Burns societies and the Caledonian societies whose activities keep them in close contact with Members of Parliament. Those societies seek to express the continuing patriotism felt by Scots and their affinity to their native land when they have moved away to work and live in other parts of the United Kingdom.
In the last session there was a little more time to canvass this issue than there is now. But one still finds in one's postbag letters from Scots who demand the same right. They say "We are Scots in

virtually every sense of the word, so why are we being shut out from determining the provisions of the Bill?"

Mr. Gordon Wilson: If all the Scots living in the hon. Member's constituency are so keen to vote in a Scottish Assembly and so keen to have an Assembly, how will he face them when he goes back and says that he has been voting against such an Assembly?

Mr. Gardiner: I did not say that they were in favour of an Assembly. Some of my constituents are not aware of the modest rôle that I play in these procedures. Some of them grab me and ask me what I am doing about this legislation. I am only too pleased to tell them. There is certainly a strong feeling among Scots in my constituency that they do not want to be shut out in this way from the proposals. They feel that their expression of Scottish identity and the loyalty that they feel to their native land is being ignored by the Government in this legislation. They feel as if the flame of their patriotism is being snuffed out.
No doubt the Government Front Bench will say that these people are not living in Scotland at the moment and there is no reason why their voice should be heard when the composition of the Scottish Assembly is determined. I do not suppose we shall hear anything from the Back Benches, because we hear little in defence of these provisions from that quarter. I merely make this point. Some of the people to whom I am referring are engaged in long-term stays in other parts of the United Kingdom. Some of them are engaged on short stays. But what distinguishes them all is that they regard Scotland, and particular parts of Scotland, as their home.
10.15 p.m.
I see no reason why in the context of Assembly elections—if, Heaven forbid, they ever come about—we should not regard these Scottish citizens in the same light as we regard service voters, employees of the Foreign Office and so on who are serving away from these shores during a General Election. They, too, can be on the electoral register in what they regard as their home constituencies and they can cast their votes in a General Election. For the life of me I cannot


see why expatriate Scots living temporarily in other parts of the United Kingdom should not have their voices heard in the same way if and when it comes to Assembly elections.
If the structure being put before us by the Government were a federal one, the argument would be totally different because there would be elections to an English Assembly and, obviously, these voters would automatically be on that electoral roll. But no English Assembly is proposed. There is no mention of dual voting. The proposition is simply that these people should be allowed to express their view in electing a Scottish Assembly if that comes about.
I draw attention to the wording of the amendment. I have referred to the Scots. We know that not every Scot south of the border is an active member of the Burns Society or the Caledonian Society. We know that there are a vast number of them. But from the wording of the amendment is it really imagined that there will be a vast flood of extra electors on to the registers in the different Scottish Assembly constituencies? As proposed in the amendment, the initiative has to lie with the people concerned. They must make the move to register their names on a special register maintained in each parliamentary constituency in Scotland. The initiative lies with them. They are not automatically caught up. This is designed simply for those who feel most strongly in their hearts that if this election is to take place in Scotland they shall be part of it.
I do not imagine that this will have a vast effect on the composition of the Assembly. Indeed, it may have only a marginal effect in a certain number of constituencies. Neverthless, I put it to the Government Front Bench that in their enthusiasm for drafting and presenting the Bill they must not shut out the Scots living outside the present borders of Scotland. Those people must have their interests taken into account.

Mr. Dalyell: It is a matter of no little irony that in a summer when the Scottish football team will be going to the Argentine, and there will be a tremendous euphoria, those of us who went to Hampden will realise that nine out of the 11 men whom we saw beating Czechoslovakia will be unable to vote. People

like Mr. Ken Dalglish, Mr. Bruce Rioch, Mr. Joe Jordan, Mr. Willie Donachie, Mr. Gordon McQueen, Mr. Andy Gray, Mr. Martin Buchan and Mr. Asa Hartford are just one group among many others who will be unable to take part in what we are discussing.
More seriously, last Thursday I was the guest for an hour of London Broadcasting on one of those phone-in programmes. It was the view of the producers that the telephone lines were jammed. With only one exception, the callers were Scots living in London who were horrified and shared the general view that I have been putting forward. Many of those people, like those to whom we have all talked and who have written to us, are genuinely angry that they have no say in what they see as the future of their country.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has just repeated what is a considerable problem, not only for the members of the Scottish football team who are unable to vote but, we gather from what we read, for the Secretary of State for Scotland himself.

Mr. Dalyell: I did not want to be personal. I was rebuked last time for bringing that in as a factual point, and I shall not return to it and be indelicate in that way. Let us not be personal, but let us admit that there is a problem.
I wish to put on record that I do not blame the Secretary of State or anyone else in his position who has properly decided that he must be near his job and has made his domestic arrangements accordingly. What I said was not meant as a criticism then, and it is not now. It simply illustrates the problem of those footballers, Secretaries of State and many others who are in a certain part of the United Kingdom on wholly legitimate business. But in a sense it is very ironic.
I agree with the Government that it is impossibly complex to trace those with first-generation credentials and those with straight credentials. It would be like painting the Forth Bridge. One would go round in circles, because as soon as one had a meaningful register it would all change. To trace Scots exiles—no, those living in England, New York or any other part of the world—is impossible. To me, this is just one more argument against the establishment of an Assembly at all.

Mr. John Stokes: As an English Member for an English seat in the West Midlands, I feel that I must in duty bound represent in this short but important debate the feelings of many Scotsmen now living in my constituency, who would like to be able to vote if there is to be a Scottish Assembly as proposed in the Bill.
Here I pay tribute to those Scotsmen in my constituency, and all those living in other parts of the United Kingdom outside Scotland, who have so greatly enriched our national life in many important aspects. There can be none of us, wherever we live, without friends and acquaintances who come from Scotland, and are exceedingly proud of the fact, and who are deeply worried about what we are doing with their country, even though they are not living in it.
I have not met one Scotsman in England, let alone in my constituency, who wants the Bill. On a recent visit to Scotland I could hardly find one Scotsman there who wanted the Bill. I tried to speak to everybody I saw—

Mr. J. W. Rooker: They would not talk to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Stokes: There is no need for the hon. Gentleman to be offensive. He is a neighbour of mine and should know how to behave in a neighbourly way.
If by any mischance the Bill is passed into law, the Scotsmen living outside Scotland do not see why they should be deprived of their vote and excluded in this marked fashion.
I suspect that the Government have specifically proposed this exclusion because they know very well that almost all Scotsmen living in England, and, I suspect, all Scotsmen living in Wales and Northern Ireland as well, are completely opposed to everything that the Bill stands for. The Government fear the views of all expatriate Scots—those living abroad as well—because these Scots are particularly British, and proud of the United Kingdom, and they fear the Bill. They fear that it will menace the essential unity that has stood the test of time over a period of years during which much Scottish blood has been shed on behalf of the United Kingdom.
This is yet another clause in this wretched Bill which shows the pitfalls

and problems that will beset us on every side, and I am sure that many more have not yet come out in the short time that we have had to debate the measure.
There are two specific categories excluded. The first is those Scottish people in parts of the United Kingdom other than Scotland who are serving, often with distinction, in the Civil Service. The second, and even more important, category that I hope will not be omitted includes the soldiers in those great Scottish regiments of the British Army who happen at the time to be serving outside Scotland. If arrangements can be made for British soldiers to vote in United Kingdom General Elections although they are serving in BAOR or Hong Kong, surely Scottish soldiers serving outside Scotland but within the United Kingdom should not be excluded in this preemptory manner.

Mr. George Cunningham: I have practically nothing nice to say about the Bill, but even I find it impossible to go along with some of the remarks that have been made on this clause.
I have some authority for speaking in this debate. I am a Scotsman representing a London seat. I am very proud of being a Scotsman but I have spent nearly two-thirds of my life in England. The last thing I want is to have a vote for an Edinburgh Assembly if, regretfully, it is set up. It would be absolutely preposterous for me to have such a vote.
It is arguable that someemigré Scotsmen should be entitled to vote in the referendum, although the practical difficulties of achieving that are overwhelming and one has to go along on both counts with what the Government have proposed. Although there are some categories who should, perhaps have a right to vote in the referendum, there is absolutely no case for saying that if the Edinburgh Assembly is passing laws on education, housing and local government within Scotland, people who are subject to education, housing and local government law in some other part of the United Kingdom should have the right to vote for a representative on the Edinburgh Assembly.
If we all put aside our opposition to the very nature of the Bill and address ourselves to the merits of the individual clause we are discussing, I suggest that


there is no case for an amendment along the lines proposed, or for those associated with it. We should concentrate our ideas on doing something like this when we discuss the qualifications for voting in the referendum, which depend not on this clause but on the provisions of Schedule 17.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Grieve: I very much regret that on a Bill on which I find myself in almost complete agreement with everything said by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), on this matter I disagree with him. May I briefly tell the Committee why?
The hon. Gentleman asked what right Scots living in England would have to participate in debates and decisions on matters affecting education, health, local government and housing in Scotland. The answer is simply, speedy, and quick. Those are the very matters which go to the root of the quality of life in Scotland. The Scots living in England—and I have many in my own family—are deeply concerned with the quality of life in Scotland. Many of them intend to return to Scotland when they have ended their careers in this country. Many such people have contributed to the service of the United Kingdom in all sorts of ways, and this has been the case for centuries. Nevertheless, they remain in the fibre of their being Scots. I believe that they should not be excluded from a voice in the election of those who are to decide so much of the future of Scotland in the Assembly at Edinburgh.
I shall not rehearse all the arguments which have been repeated in this debate about the homogeneity of our nation over the centuries and the fact that we are now completely interlaced and part of the fabric of one another. We must remember that, just as there are many Scots in England, there are many English in Scotland. They should not be excluded from a voice in the election of the Assembly in Edinburgh.
I wish to add one further category of persons who should have a voice in that election. I refer to ministers of the Church of Scotland who are serving in England. Why should those ministers, people who are deeply concerned with the quality of life in their own country, be excluded from a voice in the election

of their representatives in the Assembly at Edinburgh—if there is to be an Assembly, and, speaking for myself, I deeply regret it.
Reference has been made to the difficulties, or so-called difficulties. Let me deal with the procedural problems. The French constitution gives a vote in national general elections to every Frenchman who registers, wherever he may be in the world.

Mr. John Smith: We do not.

Mr. Grieve: "We do not", says the Minister. I believe that we are wrong. Why should we exclude expatriate Britons abroad from having a voice in determining the future of their country? There are a vast number of British overseas, but registers could be set up in embassies. But, even if there are procedural difficulties, if the French can do this for the French throughout the world, surely we can do it for Scots living in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. George Cunningham: One great difficulty is that, because of the crazy nationality laws in this country, the people who on the ground of nationality, leaving aside residence, would be entitled to vote—if we overlook the residence test—would constitute one quarter of the population of the world—by virtue of subject status, not United Kingdom citizenship. To give such a vote to people in Nigeria, Bangladesh, Ghana and India would be overdoing things a little, even by British standards.

Mr. Grieve: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, and I think I made it myself impliedly. I recognise that there is a distinction between our problem and the situation in the French Republic. Never the less, they have a number of people living abroad, and they have such a system as I have outlined. I am not here to argue that point. However, if France can do that for all French citizens living throughout the world, surely we can do so with regard to the Scottish Assembly for those Scots who were born in Scotland who are now living throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. That would not present any problem. If the suggestion is to be rejected on administrative grounds, the argument on which that rejection is based is spurious, and the Government must know that. The United Kingdom has thrived on the service of


Scots living in this country. I deeply regret this legislation and would have wished to have nothing to do with it at all. As it is, I must be here to try to improve what the House has done in giving it a Second Reading
The amendment is an improvement because it would enable Scots in this country—in England, that is—to have a voice in the future of the part of the United Kingdom from which they come and to which they may wish to return. I therefore support the amendment.

Mr. George Thompson: I am a charitable man and I normally should not like to say that any amendment was nonsense, but I am bound to break my rule tonight and agree with the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). If the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) had really been concerned about the Scots who were born in Scotland and are now resident south of the border he would not have put down the amendment as he did. He would have worded it, "whose birth was registered in that constituency", because it is possible for people whose parents are registered in Scotland to have been born in England but now to have their births registered as having been in Scotland so that they will feel themselves to be Scots. The hon. Gentleman must pay regard to those people too or he will constitute a minority who will be displaced.
We ought to make a distinction. There are the Scots who left Scotland freely and went elsewhere and have become, to all intents and purposes adopted citizens of England, adopted Englishmen—which they are perfectly entitled to do—just as some English people who have come to Scotland want to be Scots, regard themselves as Scots, send their children to Scottish schools and, to all intents and purposes, have become naturalised Scots, as they are perfectly entitled to do. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] There is no rubbish in that, because I know English people who are resident in Scotland who consider themselves to be Scots and whom I look upon as adoptive Scots. If the two countries had been separated, those people would have become naturalised Scots citizens. Hon. Members may say "rubbish" as much as they like, but I can assure the Committee that there are

English people in Scotland who, had they had to make such a choice, would have done that.

Mr. Raison: Is the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) saying that those people want to have separatism forced upon them?

Mr. Thompson: I am terribly sorry that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) is not capable of following a simple, plain Scots argument. I am sorry if his mind is so convoluted that he cannot follow it. Some Scots had to leave Scotland because there was no work for them and they had to find it south of the border.
It might be said that, according to this amendment, those people who want to regard themselves as English would not be in any way obliged to register in the way that the hon. Member proposes that they should. But there are hon. Members who would be going round—they are not interested in the Assembly working well, only in scuppering it—urging these people to get themselves registered.

Mr. Grieve: Is the hon. Member suggesting that there are people who would go round getting Scotsmen living in England to register in order to sabotage the work of the Assembly in Edinburgh?

Mr. Thompson: I would not put it past certain hon. Members, and I do not think that those who read the debates on this Bill will have any doubts about who they might be. Many of the amendments we are debating are not concerned with improving the Assembly. They are concerned more with not having an Assembly. It is to the credit of those hon. Members that they say so plainly.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: It is not a question of making the Assembly work well or otherwise, but of simple common justice to people who have been born in Scotland and have left but wish to record their vote there because they are going back there to end their lives.

Mr. Thompson: If the hon. Member wants to move a verbal amendment to achieve the aim he has just set out, that is all very well, but what he described is not what is in the amendment we are now discussing.
The hon. Member for Reigate talked to us about people living temporarily in England. Quite obviously, he did not tell us how long "temporarily" is. I would have expected an hon. Member of his acuity to have given that information. If we accepted his view—and I stress that I do not—surely something would have to be done about those English people who are temporarily resident in Scotland.
We must consider the English people who will be temporarily resident in Scotland and, quite properly, will be entitled to vote in the Assembly elections even though quite soon afterwards they might actually move back to England. The hon. Member did not mention that. He also told us that had there been a federal system he would not have moved the amendment. But I should have thought that, on his line of argument, although I am sure he will tell me that I am wrong, under a federal system people should be able to choose where they would register for voting purposes. That is to carry this amendment to the absurd lengths that are possible.
The Conservatives are deeply concerned about public expenditure. Never a halfpenny should be spent that should not be spent. But surely this amendment would be asking for the spending of a considerable amount of money in checking the claims of people saying that they had been born in Scotland.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: To help us understand this question of rationality, can the hon. Member tell us whether in his opinion, and that of his party, an Englishman resident in Scotland who did not take the opportunity to take Scottish citizenship should have the right to vote in Scotland?

Mr. Thompson: I am sure, Mr. Murton, that you will observe, as I have done, that that question is quite irrelevant to the amendment we are discussing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] Conservative Members always want "Yes" or "No" answers. That is because those are the sort of questions the Tories like to receive at General Elections. It is said that the candidate is in a great hurry and questioners are asked to provide questions that can be answered quickly with a "Yes" or a "No". Surely these matters would have to be decided between the Government of England and the Government of Scot

land when the day arrives, as it surely will.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Buchan: What is the hon. Member's view?

Mr. Thompson: I shall not give way to sedentary interruptions.

Mr. Buchan: rose—

Mr. Thompson: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is not very good at giving way himself.

Mr. Buchan: On the contrary.

Mr. Thompson: Very well.

Mr. Buchan: In such a situation of negotiation, what would be the hon. Gentleman's view? For what would the hon. Gentleman be arguing?

Mr. Thompson: If I could be assured that the hon. Gentleman would not attempt to say that I was stating the SNP's view, I might answer the question.

Mr. Buchan: Answer.

Mr. Thompson: I take the view that, just as citizens of the Republic of Ireland are allowed to vote in elections here, personally—I stress "personally"—I believe that it would be a matter for negotiation between the independent Governments. I, personally, would be willing to accept that English people resident in Scotland would be entitled to vote—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I see no reason for hon. Members to cry "Oh". Citizens of the Republic of Ireland are allowed to vote here. I do not think that even the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) has suggested that that should not be the position.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: rose—

Mr. Thompson: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Douglas Henderson: Get your wig on, Teddy.

Mr. Thompson: Neither shall I give way to sedentary interruptions from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson).
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Findsbury spoke about those who are not resident in Scotland and not rooted in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman said that they might not know the issues


in the constituency in which they wish to vote and they might not want to retire to the constituency. Surely this is one of the most nonsensical amendments that have been deployed. I could not possibly support it.

Mr. Hector Monro: If I were permitted to begin with a prayer, I should say "Lord save us from the SNP". It grieved me to hear the remarks of my neighbouring Member, the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson). It grieves me that such rubbish should come from anyone from Scotland.
The debate has highlighted the shambles that the Bill has become. It does not encourage the unity of the United Kingdom if it is to begin with so much dissension as to who is to vote in the referendum.
I want to hear the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), who asked about Scottish Service men in the Army, the Royal Air Force or the Royal Navy. It must not be said that they will be registered somewhere in Scotland, because that is not necessarily the position. If a Scots Service man is married in England or Wales, he very often registers, at least temporarily, at the home of his wife. That means that the Service man is prevented from voting.
The hon. Member for Galloway said that some Scots born near the border in England can now be registered in Scotland. That does not apply at present, because none of those under that provision can be anywhere near 18 years of age. The hon. Gentleman should remember that a substantial number of my constituents were for geographical reasons born at the nearest maternity home—one in Cumberland—and that if they were still living in Cumberland they would be prevented from voting. [Laughter.] There are many good Scots who happen, for geographical reasons, to be borne in Cumberland. They have to work in Cumberland and live there. That does not stop them from being Scots, however.
A point which we must come to grips with and which no doubt for administrative reasons the Minister will try to dodge is the very important one that there are

many hundreds of thousands of very good Scots who were not born in Scotland and, therefore, have not a birth certificate registered in Scotland. They are no less worthy of the chance to vote in the elections. This is highlighted by the large number of Scots who are born of strong Scottish parents but whose parents happened to be living abroad at the time of their birth. Should they, too, be excluded?

Mr. George Cunningham: Of course they should. [Interruption.]

Mr. Monro: I do not know what the interest of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is in this.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: It is only my interest in this nonsense.

Mr. Monro: The hon. Gentleman will be, as usual, in both Lobbies in the next Division if he can move from one to the other fast enough.
I hope that the Minister will not, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) said, hide behind administrative reasons to prevent good Scots from voting. I believe that he intends to do just that, because every indication in the debate has been that he will not accept this very promising amendment.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I say a few words at this point in the debate.
I recognise the spirit in which the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Munro) advanced his argument. When he reads the report of his speech tomorrow, I am sure he will realise just how confused he was tonight. He was talking about the referendum and not about elections to the Assembly, which is what the amendment is about. Even the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner), who is the architect of the amendment, will confirm that the amendment is about elections to the Assembly. I see the hon. Member for Reigate nodding in agreement. Perhaps the hon. Members for Dumfries and Reigate should get together earlier in the evening, and then perhaps later on the hon. Member for Dumfries would not be so surprised.
In fact, many of the contributions were about the voting procedure on the referendum. The hon. Members for Dumfries


and for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) and, to a certain extent, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) spoke about this subject. I do not intend to deal with the question of voting procedures and just who are qualified to vote in the referendum. We shall come to debate that matter in due course and you, Mr. Murton, would not want me to stray on to the subject tonight.
The hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) demolished his own argument that people who are Scots and, for one reason or another, have moved their home and now live in another part of the United Kingdom should, because they are interested in the fabric and quality of life and everythting that goes to make up life in Scotland, have a vote in elections to the Assembly.

Mr. Grieve: Perhaps I may correct the Minister. That was not the basis of my argument at all. The basis of my argument was that they are Scots and should have a voice in the election to the Assembly of their country. Part of that argument is that obviously, as Scots, they would be interested in the future of their country.

Mr. Ewing: I accept that there were two legs to the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument—first, that they were Scots, and, secondly, that they had an interest in the quality of life. I suspect that both legs are linked. The hon. and learned Gentleman was quite specific in saying that Scots living in England had an interest in what education policies were implemented in Scotland. When he reads that in Hansard tomorrow, he will confirm that in his own mind.
Conversely, if that is true of Scots living in England, it is equally true of English people living in Scotland. That is an argument not for a vote in the Assembly elections but for a vote in local government elections. It is local government where that kind of policy is made.
The hon. and learned Gentleman appeared, to me at least, to be arguing that English people living in any other part of the United Kingdom—indeed, some Yorkshire people, I suspect, living in London—ought to have a vote in the local government elections of the area of their birth; for example, Yorkshire. Yorkshire people will naturally be in

terested in the quality of life in their own county. [Interruption.] It is not a regional question. I am not saying that it is a regional question. I am taking the argument as put by the hon. and learned Member for Solihull. He was arguing that because a person had been born in a particular part of the country. that person was, therefore, interested in the quality of life and how life developed there because—in the hon. and learned Gentleman's own words—there will come a time when the person's working days were over and he might want to return to the area of his birth.
That is an argument that could be applied throughout the United Kingdom. If it has any validity at all—I do not believe that it has—it has validity only at local government level. It certainly has no validity at the level about which we are talking. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman, for whom I have great respect, will examine his remarks and look at the proposition in favour of which he is really arguing. The proposition has no substance whatsoever.

Mr. Grieve: I apologise for intervening a second time, but is the Minister really equating this great Scottish Assembly that the Bill will set up with an instrument of local government?

Mr. Ewing: No. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that perfectly well. I am dealing with his argument and pointing out how shallow and lacking in substance it was.
I turn now to my hon. Friends the Members for West Lothian and for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). If any amendment to the Bill attracts the universal condemnation of my two hon. Friends, that amendment must surely be wrong. There can be no validity for suggesting—

Mr. Raison: rose—

Mr. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman should control himself. There can be no validity for suggesting that we ought to accept such an amendment.
There was one other point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian that I should correct before our sports writers in Scotland get it wrong. It was on the question of the Scottish international football team. There are two players in the Scottish international


team, Rioch and Masson, who would not qualify for a vote even under the amendment, because neither was born in Scotland. Yet they are going to Argentina next year to help us win the World Cup.
Finally, on the question of births, it must be perfectly clear that a birth that takes place in England must be registered there. There can be no question concerning a birth taking place in England. I do not want letters sent to my Department about this, and I am making that point clear.
The standard principle in the United Kingdom is that citizens have a vote in the areas where they have a permanent residence. The responsibilities of the Scottish Assembly will be exercised in relation to Scotland and will most affect—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I wish that some Conservative Members would

do some reading. The responsibilities will most affect the people resident there. The strength of feeling of the expatriate Scots for their country is not to be discounted. What is proposed would be illogical and not found—

It being Eleven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded pursuant to the Order [16th November] and the Resolution yesterday, to put forthtwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question, That the amendment be made,put and negatived.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Eleven o'clock.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 188, Noes 153.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 6 to 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15

SUBSIDIARY POWERS OF ASSEMBLY

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided:Ayes 186, Noes 154.

Division No. 18]
AYES
[11.00 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Duffy, A. E. P.
Lambie, David


Anderson, Donald
Dunn, James A.
Lamborn, Harry


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dunnett, Jack
Lamond, James


Armstrong, Ernest
Eadie, Alex
Loyden, Eddie


Ashton, Joe
Edge, Geoff
Luard, Evan


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Atkinson, Norman
English, Michael
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Evans,Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
McCartney, Hugh


Bain, Mrs. Margaret
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
MacCormick, Iain


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
McElhone, Frank


Bates, Alf
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Beith, A. J.
Flannery, Martin
Maclennan, Robert


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Madden, Max


[...] H.
Ford, Ben
Magee, Bryan


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Marks, Kenneth


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Bradley, Tom
Freud, Clement
Meacher, Michael


Bray, Dr Jeremy
George, Bruce
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Gilbert, Dr John
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Ginsburg, David
Mitchell, Austin


Buchan, Norman
Golding, John
Molloy, William


Buchanan, Richard
Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Rt Hon J, (Aberavon)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Moyle, Roland


Campbell, Ian
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Canavan, Dennis
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Carmichael, Neil
Hatton, Frank
Newens, Stanley


Cartwright, John
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Noble, Mike


Clemitson, Ivor
Heffer, Eric S.
Oakes, Gordon


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Henderson, Douglas
Ogden, Eric


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Hooley, Frank
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Hooson, Emlyn
Ovenden, John


Corbett, Robin
Horam, John
Park, George


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Pavitt, Laurie


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Penhaligon, David


Crawford, Douglas
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Price, William (Rugby)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hunter, Adam
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Cryer, Bob
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Reid, George


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Janner, Greville
Robinson, Geoffrey


Dalyell, Tarn
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Davidson, Arthur
John, Brynmor
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Davies, Denzll (Llanelli)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Deakins, Eric
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Booker, J. W.


Dempsey, James
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Roper, John


Doig, Peter
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rose, Paul B.


Dormand, J. D.
Kerr, Russell
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kilfedder. James
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)




Sever, J.
Strang, Gavin
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Whitlock, William


Silverman, Julius
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Wigley, Dafydd


Skinner, Dennis
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Small, William
Thompson, George
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Snape, Peter
Tierney, Sydney
Woodall, Alec


Spriggs, Leslie
Tinn, James
Woof, Robert


Stallard, A. W.
Tomlinson, John
Young, David (Bolton E)


Steel, Rt Hon David
Torney, Tom



Stewart, Rt Hon Donald
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Watt, Hamish
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Stott, Roger
Welsh, Andrew
Mr. Donald Coleman.




NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Hayhoe, Barney
Pink, R. Bonner


Alison, Michael
Hodgson, Robin
Powell, Rt Hon J Enoch


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Holland, Philip
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Baker, Kenneth
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Hurd, Douglas
Prior, Rt Hon James


Benyon, W.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Berry, Hon Anthony
James, David
Raison, Timothy


Bottomley, Peter
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bradford, Rev Robert
Jessel, Toby
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Brittan, Leon
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Joseph, Rt Hon. Sir Keith
Rhodes James, R.


Brotherton, Michael
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rifkind, Malcolm


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Bulmer, Esmond
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Knox, David
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Carlisle, Mark
Lamont, Norman
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sainsbury, Tim


Channon, Paul
Lawson, Nigel
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Churchill, W. S.
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shepherd, Colin


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Luce, Richard
Silvester, Fred


Clegg, Walter
Macfarlane, Nell
Sinclair, Sir George


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
MacGregor, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cope, John
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Costain, A. P.
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Marten, Neil
Speed, Keith


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mates, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Dunlop, John
Mather, Carol
Sproat, Iain


Dykes, Hugh
Mawby, Ray
Stainton, Keith


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stanbrook, Ivor


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Mayhew, Patrick
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Emery, Peter
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stokes, John


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Mider, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Fairgrieve, Russell
Mills, Peter
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Miscampbell, Norman
Tebbit, Norman


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Moate, Roger
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Fox, Marcus
Molyneaux, James
Townsend, Cyril D.


Fry, Peter
Monro, Hector
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Montgomery, Fergus
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wall, Patrick


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Morgan, Geraint
Walters, Dennis


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Weatherill, Bernard


Grieve, Percy
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wells, John


Griffiths, Eldon
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Winterton, Nicholas


Grist, Ian
Neave, Airey
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Grylls, Michael
Neubert, Michael
Younger, Hon George


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Newton, Tony



Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hampson, Dr Keith
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Spencer le Marchant and


Hannam, John
Pattie, Geoffrey
Sir George Young.


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Percival, Ian



Haselhurst, Alan
Peyton, Rt Hon John

Division No. 19]
AYES
[11.17 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Anderson, Donald
Ford, Ben
Newens, Stanley


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Noble, Miks


Armstrong, Ernest
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Oakes, Gordon


Ashton, Joe
Freud, Clement
Ogden, Eric


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
George, Bruce
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Atkinson, Norman
Gilbert, Dr John
Park, George


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ginsburg, David
Pavitt, Laurie


Bain, Mrs. Margaret
Golding, John
Penhaligon, David


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Gourlay, Harry
Price, William (Rugby)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Bates, Alf
Grocott, Bruce
Reid, George


Beith, A. J.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Roderick, Caerwyn


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Boardman, H.
Hatton, Frank
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Rooker J. W.


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Heffer, Eric S.
Roper, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Henderson, Douglas
Rose, Paul B.


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hooley, Frank
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Hooson, Emlyn
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Buchan, Norman
Horam, John
Sever, J.


Buchanan, Richard
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C.[...]


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Silverman, Julius


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Skinner, Dennis


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hunter, Adam
Small, William


Campbell, Ian
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Canavan, Dennis
Janner, Greville
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Carmichael, Neil
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Spriggs, Leslie


Cartwright, John
John, Brynmor
Stallard, A. W.


Clemitson, Ivor
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Stott, Roger


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Kerr, Russell
Strang, Gavin


Corbett, Robin
Kilfedder, James
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lambie, David
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Lamborn, Harry
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Crawford, Douglas
Lamond, James
Thompson, George


Crawshaw, Richard
Loyden, Eddie
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Cryer, Bob
Luard, Evan
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Tierney, Sydney


Dalyell, Tarn
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Tinn, James


Davidson, Arthur
McCartney, Hugh
Tomlinson, John


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
MacCormick, Iain
Torney, Tom


Deakins, Eric
McDonald, Or Oonagh
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Dempsey, James
McElhone, Frank
Watt, Hamish


Doig, Peter
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Welsh, Andrew


Dormand, J. D.
Maclennan, Robert
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Whitlock, William


Duffy, A. E. P.
Madden, Max
Wigley, Dafydd


Dunn, James A.
Magee, Bryan
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Dunnett, Jack
Marks, Kenneth
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Eadie, Alex
Marshall. Dr Edmund (Goole)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Edge, Geoff
Meacher, Michael
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Woodall, Alec


English, Michael
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Woof, Robert


Evans,Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Mitchell, Austin
Young, David (Bolton E)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Molloy, William



Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Mr. Peter Snape.


Flannery, Martin
Moyle, Roland



Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick





NOES


Adley, Robert
Bulmer, Esmond
Dunlop, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Dykes, Hugh


Alison, Michael
Carlisle, Mark
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Baker, Kenneth
Channon, Paul
Emery, Peter


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Churchill, W. S.
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Benyon, W.
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fairgrieve, Russell


Bottomley, Peter
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Clegg, Walter
Fookes, Miss Janet


Brittan, Leon
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Cope, John
Fox, Marcus


Brotherton, Michael
Costain, A. P.
Fry, Peter


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)







Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mather, Carol
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mawby, Ray
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Grieve, Percy
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Sainsbury, Tim


Griffiths, Eldon
Mayhew, Patrick
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Grist, Ian
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Grylls, Michael
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Shepherd, Colin


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mills, Peter
Silvester, Fred


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Miscampbell, Norman
Sinclair, Sir George


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hannam, John
Moate, Roger
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Molyneaux, James
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Haselhurst, Alan
Monro, Hector
Speed, Keith


Hayhoe, Barney
Montgomery, Fergus
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Hodgson, Robin
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Sproat, Iain


Holland, Philip
Morgan, Geraint
Stainton, Keith


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hurd, Douglas
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Neave, Airey
Stokes, John


James, David
Neubert, Michael
Stradling Thomas, J.


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Newton, Tony
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Jessel, Toby
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Tebbit, Norman


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Joseph, Rt Hon. Sir Keith
Pattie, Geoffrey
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Percival, Ian
Townsend, Cyril D.


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Pink, R. Bonner
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Knox, David
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Wall, Patrick


Lamont, Norman
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Walters, Dennis


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Weatherill, Bernard


Lawson, Nigel
Prior, Rt Hon James
Wells, John


Le Marchant, Spencer
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Winterton, Nicholas


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Raison, Timothy
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Luce, Richard
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Macfarlane, Neil
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Younger, Hon George


MacGregor, John
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)



MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Rhodes James, R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Rifkind, Malcolm
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Marten, Neil
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Mr. Peter Morrison.


Mates, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 16 and 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Then The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, pursuant to Order [16th November].

Committee report Progess; to sit again tomorrow.

CATTLE (ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION)

11.32 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Artificial Insemination of Cattle (England and Wales) Regulations 1977 (S.I., 1977, No. 1260), dated 25th July 1977, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th July, in the last Session of Parliament, be annulled.
At around midnight we are to spend an hour and a half discussing for the first time a complex set of regulations covering two rather difficult and intertwined subjects of great concern to all livestock farmers, and particularly to some people who have spent their lives acquiring a degree of expert knowledge. This does not seem a very good way for Parliament to win respect for itself.
Nobody would complain about lack of consultations, although whether they have always been directed to the right people is another question. Certainly, consultations started in 1971 on whether the 1957 regulations on artificial insemination should be amended. At the end of July this year—and this is one of the points to which we particularly object—new regulations were suddenly published. We were told that they would become effective on 1st September, which meant that there could be no debate before they came into effect. Now, some months after the event we are left debating the simple question whether we shall throw them out or accept them. There is no possibility of amendment.
Faced with these very complicated regulations, I should say that as recently as last week the Conservative Agriculture Committee received representations from the National Farmers Union, the National Cattle Breeders Association and the Milk Marketing Board asking that we should give our support to the regulations. In those circumstances, bearing in mind the weight of that representation, it would be very difficult for me to advise the House to vote against them. But I shall ask the Parliamentary Secretary for some clear undertakings about his approach to these matters in the future.
As I understand it, the main change brought about by these regulations—the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me

if I am wrong—is that for the first time there will be very strict control over the distribution of semen. It has been said—the hon. Gentleman used the phrase in correspondence with me—that some people have "exploited a loophole" in the 1957 regulations. For a start, I say that that is a rotten bad argument. The mere fact that regulations allow people to do something does not necessarily mean, save possibly in the language and in the world of Whitehall, that they should subsequently, for that reason, be stopped from doing it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not spoil his case by deploying an argument that smacks of costive bureaucracy rather than common sense.
I want to be fair. As I understand it, the arguments that the hon. Gentleman will adduce in favour of these regulations are twofold. First, there is the question of animal health and the control of disease. I particularly want the hon. Gentleman to say how these regulations provide for animal health. What safeguards for health do they provide which could not be assured by other people who are active in the industry and are just as concerned as are the Government?
Secondly, the argument is put forward—and on the whole this is a more respectable one—that there must be a viable network in order to assure a comprehensive service to all farmers, no matter how small they may be, or how remote. I believe that that is a fair and important argument, and one that, I understand, has commended itself to the National Farmers Union.
At this stage it is fair to outline the duties which I understand the board will undertake. Not only will it be obliged to provide an inseminator service; it will be obliged to train personnel for D-I-Y A1; it will be obliged to provide flasks and service them with liquid nitrogen and, in addition, to provide semen from any approved bull—not just bulls belonging to the Board.
The farmer who wishes to carry out artificial insemination for himself will be free to store semen of any approved bull and will be allowed—if he lives in Scotland—straws amounting to three times the number of breeding females in his herd. If he lives in England he will have straws amounting to only twice the number of females.
I move for a moment to the general question of livestock quality controls, with which the AI regulations have been somewhat confused. A great deal of the controversy aroused refers rather more to the livestock quality controls generally than to the AI regulations particularly. There is much criticism of the criteria adopted by the Government for the selection of bulls on the grounds that they are altogether too narrow, that far too much weight is given to butterfat on first lactation, and that other important factors are treated too lightly.
In Regulation 5 very wide powers are given to the Minister with discretions to himself, but with no discretion at all to anybody else. It is clear that Parliament has no formal opportunity to comment on the criteria or upon any change in them which the Minister in his wisdom may adopt from time to time.
I should like to deal briefly with the principal objections. The first relates to the scheme of things. I have always thought that the way Whitehall produces this strange literature stands entirely on its own. One has only to look at the first page to find something that sticks out like a sore thumb. We have in the interpretation provisions the astonishing announcement that
'animal' includes a domestic fowl, turkey, goose and duck".
I dare say that it has some relevance, but it seems a strange way to start the thing off.
One of the first objections made, with which I have a certain sympathy, is that these regulations spring at least as much from a desire in Whitehall to know what is going on and what everybody else is up to at all times as from any concern for animal health or the welfare of our breeding herds.
There is a reasonable anxiety that monopolies tend to overcharge, not to be brisk in the performance of their duties and to be somewhat inattentive to complaints. We have plenty of experience of State monopolies, and it would be fair, in passing, to mention that the Milk Marketing Board, which is a producers' organisation, has performed distinguished service for the dairy farmers. Nevertheless, there are these anxieties, and I think that the Minister should closely concern himself with them.
Thirdly, there is the fear that breeders will find these rules unduly restrictive, particularly that a breeder will not be able to store semen from his own bulls on the farm unless it is delivered to him by one of the authorised centres. It seems that the control has gone a little crazy.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: In view of the powerful arguments adduced against these regulations, does my right hon. Gentleman intend to vote against them?

Mr. Peyton: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his constructive intervention. In view of the powerful representations that we have received in support of the regulations and the arguments that have been adduced—and I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will echo them—my right hon. Friends and hon. Friends would be ill-advised to throw the regulations out. However, I hope to get from the Government some really fair and clear undertakings about their attitude in future, and we shall watch carefully to see how the Government will perform.
I now return to the various objections that have been expresed to the regulations. We must ask what other countries do and learn from the example of others.

Mr. Hamish Watt: Is not the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) being somewhat illogical in saying that he fears a monopoly in the use and sales of AI by the Milk Marketing Boards when, in other spheres, he has argued in favour of the retention of the boards. Surely the power of the boards in the sale and control of milk is far greater than for a few straws of semen.

Mr. Peyton: That point was hardly worth making. I suppose the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) did so for fear of the risk that he might not be able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, later on.

Mr. Peter Mills: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) should declare an interest as a member of a Milk Marketing Board.

Mr. Watt: I am an ex-director of the Banff Milk Marketing Board. I no longer have any interest whatsoever in the workings of that board.

Mr. Peyton: I hope that I may be allowed to congratulate the board on now being without the hon. Member for Banff.
I now want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what lessons the Government have learned. They must have considered what happens in other countries. Do other countries that are not unsuccessful in breeding cattle find it necessary to resort to such a battery of regulations, and, if not why do we?
My next question is one that is being asked by many people: why are there different regulations for Scotland compared with England and Wales? In Scotland farmers will be allowed to store three straws per breeding animal while in England and Wales the limit will be two. I cannot really believe that the Government will seek to pursue that absurd distinction and deny breeders in England and Wales something that will give them a little more flexibility.
I also wonder why it is that, while special provisons are made for such areas as the Secretary of State for Scotland may consider to be remote, no such discretion is given to the Minister responsible for England and Wales in respect of remote areas. The Minister must be aware that there are three points in the regulations for Scotland in which special provisions are made for remote areas but there is no such provision in the regulations affecting England and Wales. Why is that so?
The regulations provide for a plethora of licences. One in particular seems to me strange. It is a requirement that firms supplying liquid nitrogen to farms must have a licence. It seems a little odd and pedantic to impose such a requirement when it is not imposed on the same firm when it supplies the same product to a hospital.
I seek three specific assurances in addition to the questions I have asked. First, I hope that the AI part of the regulations will soon be reviewed, and in a genuine manner. In a letter to me not long ago the Minister said that he would like to leave this for two years. I do not believe that that will be adequate. There must be an early review and a readiness on the part of Whitehall to listen to the objections made by people of great knowledge, wisdom and experience in this business. Too often Whitehall finds the business of listening tedious, tiresome and

unpleasant. But in this ease the people there must get down to it and show themselves ready to listen to those who perhaps know more than they do.
I hope that there will be a permanent standing body to consider livestock quality controls, and particularly the criteria for the selection of bulls. The Ministry is reviewing the criteria and will be making a statement in the near future. But I hope that the review will be continued after that and will include the review of the AI part of the regulations that I have referred to.
Will the Minister make a concession by allowing the three breeding straws pct animal permitted in Scotland to be extended to England?

Mr. Ian Gow: With my right hon. Friend's knowledge of the Parliamentary Secretary, does he not think it clear that the assurances my right hon. Friend seeks will most emphatically not be forthcoming, and in those circumstances will my right hon. Friend give different advice to his hon. Friends from that which he offered at the beginning of his speech?

Mr. Peyton: I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will gave me the assurances for which I have asked. because they are very reasonable. I have given him notice of my intention to seek these assurances. But if he is not able to give them I should certainly be prepared to reconsider the advice I have given to my right hon. and hon. Friends.
In advising against a Division tonight I am counting heavily on the Parliamentary Secretary's willingness to take a constructive view of the problem and of what I have said. It is possible that before many months are out there will be a change of Government. In that event—the Parliamentary Secretary may laugh, but I have seen people laugh from the Treasury Bench before and the laughs have turned rather sour. I say to the hon. Gentleman—if he does not want to listen I address my remarks to a wider audience—that, if there should be a change of Government, let there be no doubt that a Conservative Minister would wish to look again carefully at the regulations and the livestock quality controls, and ensure, above all else, that intelligent and wise people with great experience and knowledge of the industry


are listened to and that their voices are heard and weighed well in the balance against the arguments of mere bureaucratic convenience.

11.56 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I am sure that the House and my hon. Friends are familiar with the 1957 regulations on artificial insemination that run to seven regulations. The present regulations run to 29 regulations with six addenda. What has been the change? When the 1943 regulations on artificial insemination were introduced the whole concept was novel, but between 1957 and today it has become a familiar process for a great many farmers.
I must ask immediately why it is necessary now to impose complicated regulations on an industry that is doing fairly well. I say "fairly well" because I happen to be connected with the breeding of cattle and I speak with some knowledge. My Scottish friends will agree that in the shorthorn sector my family are rather distinguished as breeders. They do a fair amount of cattle exporting.
I regret to say that this country has little to be proud of as regards the excellence of its average livestock. Two years ago my family and I exported about 1,500 head of Friesians. I must tell the House that much the cheapest and best animals did not come from the United Kingdom but from Canada. When the Milk Marketing Board, the National Farmers Union and the breeding societies come to my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) to tell him that they think the regulations are good, I very much question their judgment.
I am involved in the cattle trade, and I and others have been brought up to believe that British cattle are the best in the world, rather like we have said that the British racehorse is the best in the world. I regret to say that that is no longer true. The essentials in cattle breeding are freedom and initiative and, if one likes, the whim. It is those essentials that lead to the design, planning and construction of a successful breed or herd. However, the Whitehall bureaucrats and the Milk Marketing Board, whose back is being scratched by the NFU, say "We can do it better". I have never heard such nonsense.
One of the greatest cattle breeders I have known in the world was a man named Bob Kekerg, a Texan, who developed a breed—I am sure that the House will know that it is difficult to get an established breed within a generation—called Santa Gertrudis. That breed is now of great use throughout the world. If Bob Kekerg had been faced with people like the Parliamentary Secretary, he would either have emigrated or gone out of business.
I am amazed by the attitude of the Conservative Party on this issue. This is one of the outstanding areas where private enterprise really has something to contribute.

Mr. Peter Mills: Is my right hon. Friend saying to the House that he is dismissing all the work that the Milk Marketing Board has done over the years to improve cattle, not for expert breeders, but for rich breeders, but for ordinary small farmers? Is he dismissing this as of no importance and as of no value? Will he please think again?

Mr. Fraser: Of course the cattle have improved. Of course the yields have risen. Of course the Milk Marketing Board has done a good job. But any suggestion to the effect that we are producing the best average cattle, as we used to do, is just a load of codswallop. Of course the Milk Marketing Board has done a fair job. What we want to do is an excellent job. We want to restore this country to its former position. It used be the marvel of the world, with the finest breeds. Does my hon. Friend want to see a dead flat, below average, sort of Socialist type of animal, a good average sort of 1,000 gallon animal? It is not I who should think again. My hon. Friend should examine what he is thinking of. If my hon. Friend is in the export business, he knows the trouble I have had. The fact is that this country has a chance now, by chucking the regulations out.
The regulations that exist under the 1957 Act are perfectly satisfactory. Have there been three-horned animals, five-headed monsters, bred under the present regulations? Has there been a disgusting exploitation of ancient semen? People talk as though farmers are half-wits. They are not half-wits. They are extremely able, competent people. If the


semen service offered is unsatisfactory, they will reject it. There is now an opportunity to go on developing a system which has grown up over the past three, four or five years of individuals trying to go in for building up their own semen banks and making co-operatives, by which they become keen on improving the breed. This should be encouraged.
What is proposed now is the establishment of a monopoly which is not in the interests of the cattle bred, not in the interests of the farmers, but mostly in the interests of the NFU, which, as I said before is inevitably scratching the backs of the Milk Marketing Board. I hope that the Conservative Party will show some guts and throw this regulation out.

12.3 a.m.

Mr. Wm. Ross: We in Northern Ireland have a slightly different kettle of fish in regard to AI. At least, we import semen from the rest of the United Kingdom. Because of that facet of our problems, I have decided to say a few words about our problems.
So far as I can see, one of the principal reasons for th introduction of the regulations is an apparent need to improve the standards of hygiene in the collection, storage and dissemination of semen. I do not think that any practical farmer can logically argue against the highest possible standards in this matter.
I want to question one or two aspects of the order. First, it is said that we shall have the best bulls, or that we shall have good bulls. What are good bulls, Who chooses them? Who decides what a good bull is. Are we seeking, as a lot of the stuff that has come through the post and a lot of the stuff that I have researched for this debate has suggested, the highest milk yield? Are we seeking beef? Are we seeking dual-purpose animals? Or are we seeking animals that simply look good and have good conformation? What are we looking for?
Indeed, in one of the pieces of material that I came across the comment was made, by what I can only describe as an interested party, that ordinary bulls were all right for commercial service because the ordinary farmer simply wanted to get his cow in calf. If there is

any ordinary farmer who is satisfied simply with getting his cow in calf, he will not be an ordinary farmer for long. He will be broke. It is as simple as that.
A number of things are endangered by the introduction of these negotiations if they should create a monopoly. I believe that we need as many blood lines as possible. There is no guarantee that that will come about under the regulations. We need a great many bulls under test. From what has been said, it is clear that there are simply not the facilities to hold and investigate the potential of the bulls available in the country. We need to test many bulls for the characteristics that we need—or, rather, the characteristics that the market is prepared to buy. That is the final arbiter of whether the standard of bulls being selected is correct.
As I have mentioned, Northern Ireland now imports semen. At one time we had a considerable stud of bulls there for the Northern Ireland AI service. I am pleased to see that the Minister in charge of agriculture in Northern Ireland is present for this debate. I very much regret the big fall in the number of bulls in that stock, because it is a retrograde step that the Northern Ireland livestock producers will live to regret.
Furthermore, I must ask another question. How many cattle breeders do we want in this country? I sincerely believe that all farmers, in their own way, are cattle breeders, because they are breeding the stock that they need for the purpose for which they want it. It does not matter whether it is for milk or for beetf. If he is sensible, every individual farmer who wants to remain in farming will pursue the line of breeeding that is successful on his farm. Therefore, in that respect and in the facet of farming, every farmer is a breeder, be he breeding for himself or for sale.
What assurances can the Minister offer to us that individuals will have the freedom to experiment? Is he prepared to say that if the line that he is now drawing between the various interests is proven by events after three or four years—it will take at least that long, and possibly longer—to be drawn in the wrong place, there will then be a willingness on the part of the present Government to draw it in a different place in the light of


experience? Will there be a similar willingness to that indicated by the Conservative Party?
It was neither this House nor the Government who created the very successful breeds of cattle that we have in the United Kingdom. It was private breeders who did that, and it is private breeders who will continue creating and maintaining new breeds and maintaining and improving the standards of existing breeds. To some extent the private operators fulfil that function today.

Sir George Sinclair: Does the hon. Member agree that the point he is making is at the heart of the failure of Russian agriculture? The Russians have taken away from their farmers their natural interest in the upgrading of their stock and the management of their crops, and they have left their farmers no choice. The farmers have had to rely on the advice and direction of some "qualified" person—in my view, some unqualified person—who is divorced from both the local scene and the seasonal changes of weather in that sort of country. This is the sort of thing that will take the heart out of initiative and skill in the breeding of livestock in this country.

Mr. Ross: I certainly agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. As he is well aware, a totalitarian process operates in Russia. There is no private enterprise there at all.
The regulations do not cut out private individuals completely. They simply place them under very severe restrictions. I have asked the Minister whether he is prepared to change the line that he is is now drawing if it should eventually prove to be in the wrong place.
If, however, all semen has to be stored at a central point and distributed from there, can we be given an assurance this evening that the financial burden that will be placed on the private individual will be shared in equal measure by institutions such as the Milk Marketing Board? If it is not, the individual will be placed at a very severe financial disadvantage which will inhibit the putting forward of his particular facet of cattle breeding, perhaps to the long-term detriment of the rest of the cattle herd in the country.
The House will recall that a short time ago it abolished bull licensing. It is claimed that no harm has come from it. However, in the regulations we find the reintroduction of standards to be applied by the Government to the bulls that are being used in this country. Why is there a difference here? What is the diference? Is there a difference other than in the number of cattle and the number of cows which are affected by a given bull? If there is, we need to be told about it.
I believe that in a position such as this the only thing the Government can ask for is the right to control the spread of disease and the maintenance of bull health. This is very difficult because the health of a bull can alter from day to day. I think that the Government should also ask that the very clearest details of the quality of the progeny of the individual bull should be made available to those who wish to make use of the semen, because that will sell the cattle produced by that bull.
Finally, I return to my central question. If experience shows that this line has got to be re-drawn, are the Government prepared to re-draw it?

12.11 a.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I must immediately say that I have no interest in this industry, nor do I have any technical knowledge of cattle breeding. But I think that I can smell a monopoly when it is coming, and I think that what is proposed in the regulations is about as blatant a national monopoly as I have recently seen.
I cannot understand, first, why the Government propose it, because I remember the speeches of the right hon. Gentlemen the Secretary of State for Energy at his party conference when he railed against the monopolies in this country and said that they were the cause of our economic decline. I cannot understand why my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), who made his point about the monopoly, was so hesitant about expressing his views in the Lobby against the monopoly which is proposed here. I know that it is not a perfect monopoly. I know that the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said that some private breeders can select their own semen and their own bulls, but the economics involved and the weight of the


licensing arrangements and bureaucracy are unlikely to allow full freedom to develop. The House is excusing itself from asking questions and asking for assurances, having been bought off by the promise of a review.
I have a letter from the Minister of State to the effect that next year the standard of bulls will be reviewed, but that will be too late if we pass the regulations. Next year he can do what he likes because he will have the regulations on the statute book. I am not persuaded to grant a monopoly by hearing the monopolist promising to be a good boy while his application is being granted or not granted by this House.
It is alleged that the Milk Marketing Board knows best which bulls to use and which to develop for the health of the cattle breeding industry. We are told that the main criteria are lactation and butterfat, but there are other characteristics which farmers who breed cattle care about. This sounds rather like the Miss World contest. I understand that the cattle should have good feet, good legs, sound-wearing udders and longevity. These are also qualities which are essential in cattle for various purposes. I do not know, and I suspect that the Milk Marketing Board does not know and that the Government do not know, from which particular bulls to breed in order to produce the optimum combination of these qualities. The only way in which this can be done in a free society is by allowing different people to take different mixtures, different breeds and different strains to ensure against the calamitous national mistake that we have backed the wrong breed with all that we have.
I hope that I shall be forgiven for giving an industrial analogy. The total monopolistic concentration upon Magnox nuclear power stations proved to be a mistake, and the nation paid dearly for the fact that it did not have several people making different sorts of nuclear power station, because one of them might have been right instead of the whole effort having proved to be wrong.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: This is a question that I shall put to the Minister, and, therefore, I give notice by raising it with my hon. Friend. If he looks at Part I he will

see under the heading "Interpretation" that "animal" includes a domestic fowl. If he looks at Part IV he will see that "teaser animal" means
a bovine animal which is used as an aid in the collection of semen from a bull".
Can my hon. Friend help by telling me what is a teaser fowl, turkey, goose or duck which is used as an aid in the collection of semen from a bull?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. and learned Friend declared that he was slanting his question off me to the Minister, and I must plead with the Minister to deal with it because I said that I had no great technical knowledge of this subject.
I want to draw one more analogy in what will be a brief speech, because it is possible to take this question of the monopoly selection of breeding into a more advanced and sinister sphere to demonstrate what I am trying to say.
Let us suppose that some future Socialist Party, in some future country, took upon itself the development of the most ideal human being through selective breeding organised by the bureaucrats. That is not very far from reality. That is what Hitler tried to do before the days of AI. He and his party tried to breed the perfect Socialist, abounding in bogus compassion, not clear about the facts, and equipped with a cloth cap or long beard, depending upon the age at the time. They could achieve all that, but what a loss in human diversity there would be, because it is by the very diversity of the animal kingdom, as well as the human kingdom, that progess is made.
I believe that the entrusting of this monopoly to the Milk Marketing Board could be a death-blow to the independent development of different breeds of cattle for different purposes. It could well be a distaster for the future of this industry, just as it has been in all the State monopolies that we have seen, whether coal, steel, nuclear power, gas, electricity or any other. The development of State monoplies has probably been the biggest error that this country has ever made, and to impose it upon the farming industry after midnight on a night like this seems to me a decision that my right hon. and hon. Friends should oppose.
I plead with my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil, who made some powerful points against the regulations, to


allow his vote to follow his voice, because once these regulations are through it will be very much more difficult for a future Conservative Government to take them off the statute book than it would be to prevent them from going on it now, even at this late hour.

12.20 a.m.

Mr. Geraint Howells: In accordance with the tradition of this House, I declare an interest as a farmer and a member of one of the producer boards in this country.
I have listened with interest to the debate and I was impressed by the powerful speech of the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser). I also listened with interest to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). He made a powerful speech too, condemning the Government and saying that he was against the regulations, but he was weak when he advised his hon. Friends not to vote against them. My hon. Friends and I take a different view. We shall vote against the regulations, and I hope that Conservative Members will follow our example.
The intentions of those who formulated the new regulations were, no doubt, laudable, but, having studied the implications, I have concluded that they should be rejected. I stress that in opposing the regulations I am not against upholding the highest standards of hygiene and health control, but these can be maintained without additional burdensome regulations.
The effect of the regulations would be to ensure a monopoly in the service for the Milk Marketing Board, and as a Liberal I am against any sort of monopoly, whether in the private or the public sector.

Mr. Peter Mills: Is the hon. Gentleman against the monopoly of the Milk Marketing Board as regards the collection and distribution of milk—something that has done so much for all producers and consumers?

Mr. Howells: We are discussing artificial insemination regulations. They cut across the right of the individual and the small man and hand over control of the semen market to what has been described in some quarters as "co-operative supermarkets".
We must not allow further bureaucratic control of the farming industry, or any

other, if possible. This is one instance in which we can dispense with the red tape. We did away with bull licensing, and I have not heard any adverse comment on that from farmers. I believe that we must do the same with these regulations.
The regulations are an intrusion on the liberty of the individual in society. We have no such regulations for sheep or pig producers or for producers of any other livestock. We shall oppose any such regulations that may be introduced on the Floor of the House in future.
The NFU brief says that, in general, the regulations provide for the supply of semen through the AI network, controls over "do-it-yourself" AI—I am worried about these controls—and the approval of bulls for use in AI. It goes on to say that the NFU and the National Cattle Breeders Association have jointly approached the Parliamentary Secretary for assurances. I wonder whether they are satisfied with the assurances that they have been given. Can the Minister give us the assurances, because unless we oppose the regulations they are here to stay?
I turn now to the views of another group of people who give a great service to the industry. The British Association of Independent Artificial Insemination and the National Association of Semen Suppliers ask:
What's wrong with the regulations? With regard to livestock quality control, they leave the Minister with the right which he uses to interfere.
The Minister will have the right to answer that query when he replies to the debate.
The associations maintain:
With regard to distribution of semen, they enhance, indeed secure, the AI/MMB network's monopoly position.
They also say that the regulations
Create a heap of unnecessary red tape and humbug.
I am very interested in this paragraph from the association's brief:
The regulations leave the Minister's finger firmly in the pie! He controls the quality criteria which bulls must attain before semen is released on the market.
The associations go on to say—and I agree:
We believe farmers are not idiots—in a free market they will continue to use the progeny test as only one important tool in deciding which bulls to use. They will not use so much unproven semen as to materially


affect the genetic make-up of their own herds or the National herd until they have proved the traits for which they are looking.
Let us look at the comparisons. The associations state:
The firm control of livestock quality in Britain in the last 20 years has not shown great results:
In Britain 1954–1973 Pedigree Friesian recorded average had increased by only 8·4 per cent.
In Canada the Pedigree Friesian Holstein recorded average has increased by 20 per cent. The Canadian Government guides, the farmer decides.

Mr. Watt: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that in gaining this extra milk the Canadian Holstein lost all ability to transmit any beef qualities to its progeny?

Mr. Howells: I do not accept that. According to the figures, the Canadians are doing much better than British farmers.
The associations points out that
The recorded herd average of Canada, America, Holland, Israel and Japan are all higher than ours—without rigorous statutory control.
On the Milk Marketing Board's monopoly rights, the associations state:
The regulations fully protect the AI network monopoly of the semen market. No other firm or person will be given a licence to distribute semen.
However, the private breeding companies are now forced to distribute their semen through the established AI network, thus disclosing to their main competitors 'who is buying exactly from what'—a market intelligence service competitors in any other industry would pay a fortune to obtain.
Finally, the associations point out:
Note: During the recent BOC strike the MMB refused to deliver semen to DIY users for six weeks. Private distributors managed to continue operations. During the recent AI inseminators strike no AI services took place at all. Private competition would at least maintain the DIY service.
What should the legislation do? In my view, it is required to achieve sensible material control of semen production and distribution and to promote the production of statistics for the farmer to consider in his breeding plans.
In view of the shortage of time, I shall leave it to other hon. Members to speak against the regulations. However, I have advised my colleagues—I hope that many other right hon. and hon. Members will support us in the Lobby—to seek to annul the regulations.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Charles Morrison: The Parliamentary Secretary and the Ministry are open to criticism for the appalling publicity and the way they have presented the new regulations. They have created unnecessary fears which have caused a great deal of consternation among those who practise DIY AI. That was quite unnecessary. At the beginning, they created a belief among farmers that the Milk Marketing Board was to have a complete monopoly of the supply, collection, storage and distribution of semen. I understand that that is not the situation.
I was approached by farmers in my constituency on this matter. I wrote to the Minister at the end of July. I received a reply and I hope that he will be able to reiterate what he told me then. The Minister of State pointed out that, far from creating a monopoly, the new regulations would enlarge the range of genetic material for breeding programmes. I hope he will confirm that.
The Minister also said that farmers previously had had access only to semen which derived from privately-owned bulls, whereas in future the choice of semen would be extended to that derived from all bulls that were approved for use in AI in Great Britain. That was not made clear.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): Nonsense.

Mr. Morrison: The Parliamentary Secretary may say that it is nonsense, but we were at the receiving end of the worry and concern expressed by farmers. Whatever he may have thought he did to publicise the provisions in the regulations, he failed completely. I hope that he has learned his lesson and that he will not do this again. The extent of the misunderstanding has been emphasised during the debate.

Mr. Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler: Does my hon. Friend feel that hon. Members such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) have confused the definitions in the regulations of permitted person" and "qualified person"? Is it not clear when one reads


the regulations carefully that the definition of "permitted person" allows a considerable amount of freedom of the kind which worried my right hon. Friend in connection with the use of artificial insemination from a bull in that person's ownership which is applied to a cow or cows which are also in that person's ownership? Is it not a fact that a "qualified person", as described in the first part of the regulations, is a veterinary surgeon whose duty is confined to supervising the collection of semen from "permitted persons"?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. The time is short. The hon. Member must not confuse an interjection with a speech. I hope that he has finished his interjection.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: I shall be brief. I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) to say whether he feels that the misunderstanding may have arisen out of that confusion.

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend has, with great dexterity, clarified the situation even further. If hon. Gentlemen turn to paragraph 4 on page 4 of the Statutory Instrument, they will discover precisely what my hon. Friend has said. That helps to make it clear what the regulations in respect of AI set out to achieve.
Nevertheless, I want to criticise the Parliamentary Secretary for the inadequate way in which he has publicised the proposals that are now before the House. Secondly, I want to add my brief support to what has been said by a number of hon. Gentlemen with regard to livestock quality control. From the points that have been made to me, it is perfectly clear that the existing criteria are too narrow and that the time is long past when they should be widened to take account of a situation which has developed since the original AI regulations of 1957. It is no longer adequate to think solely in terms of milk production. Other considerations such as longevity and the need to maintain a variety of blood lines are of growing importance.
As far as I am concerned, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give the assurances that my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) demanded. Even on the basis

of those assurances, I shall regard the Government as being on probation and no more. It is essential to look further at the livestock quality controls with the intention of relaxing them.
I finally want to refer to the extra cost to individual farmers. What estimate has the Parliamentary Secretary made of the effect of these new regulations on AI in terms of cost to farmers?

12.38 a.m.

Mr. Hamish Watt: I am surprised to find so many Opposition Members out of their beds at this late hour in order to pray against this Statutory Instrument.
The hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) suggested that I had a particular interest in this subject. I must point out that I am no longer a director of the Aberdeen Milk Marketing Board. I am a dairy and beef farmer, but I am not a pedigree breeder and I do not breed bulls. Therefore, I have no special pecuniary interest in this matter.
I have been involved in farming for a long, time. For 17 interesting years I was a director on the AI Committee of the Aberdeen Milk Marketing Board. During that time I saw the rise and fall of an advance in the AI service.
In the course of the few minutes available to me, I want to warn the House of the dangers that may arise if we fail to pass this Statutory Instrument this evening. There is the danger of allowing what I would call the "cowboy" operators to continue in the service, and there is also the fear of the Milk Marketing Board that they might lose their position of being able to supply an AI service to the average breeder in this country.
The Aberdeen Milk Marketing Board ran no fewer than seven sub-centres throughout the North of Scotland, many of them at the behest of its neighbour, the North of Scotland Milk Marketing Board, in areas where cattle were very thin on the ground and the Milk Marketing Board had to subsidise the AI service from its other activities. We ran a very interesting service with our own stud of bulls for a time. When frozen semen came in after a few years, we soon found that we could not give our herd owners the service that big brother in the South of Scotland or even bigger


brothers in the Milk Marketing Board in England could give, because of their sheer size.
Any hon. Members who have been to Warren Farm in Hampshire and have seen the excellent job that the English Milk Marketing Board does in assessing the beef-transmitting qualities of many of the beef bulls in the AI stud will surely not be voting against the regulations. No private individual could afford to lay off the tremendous number of dairy bulls that the English Board can throughout the proving period. A very small percentage of animals return from the proving farms as proven bulls. Therefore, it is essential that we allow the Milk Marketing Boards to continue the excellent job they have done in providing AI over the years.
Although the Aberdeen Milk Marketing Board gave up its AI stud, it still managed to run a fairly viable service until some of the private insemination services came into the field. Although it has not been licensed until now, the system of do-it-yourself has been operating on the quiet for several years. The private insemination companies have been selling large quantities of semen to individual farmers, and as a result the inseminator service of the Milk Marketing Board is no longer viable and must be heavily subsidised.
If the regulations do not go through, the "cowboy" operators will be able to take an even bigger share of the market and the inseminator services now provided by the Boards will no longer be able to operate. The small man who cannot afford to keep a flask of semen or the time to learn how to do the job himself will suffer. I hope that hon. Members will take note of that when they vote.
We had to listen to many irrelevances from the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser). These regulations in no way seek to stop the private cattle breeders using their own bulls to establish breeds, as was done by the gentleman of whom the right hon. Member spoke. But I wonder whether the Minister has made the regulations tight enough. Has he given thought to the practice that is becoming prevalent of the syndication of the ownership of bulls and certain breeding cows? It is in everyone's interest that the regulations are tight.
The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) said that doing away with the licensing of bulls was not a retrograde step. I cannot agree. He and I know that immediately after the licensing regulations were withdrawn we saw cross-bred bulls of all kinds being used on farms throughout the country. There are very few of those cross-bred bulls left now, because within two years we saw a hotch-potch of animals coming through the markets from them. We saw the 57 varieties taking over. These cross-bred bulls quickly disappeared as the farmers found that they could not put an even bunch of cattle on the market. I should not like to see the same thing happen to the AI service, where anyone can do as he pleases. I therefore ask the House to reject the Prayer and support the regulations.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I must declare an interest as a farmer, and I want to ask the Minister some questions. I am in favour of the regulations, although I have some reservations about the livestock quality control side of them. That is a very important subject, and the Minister must look into it again. The problem must be decided in terms of what is a fair balance between the needs of the DIY AI service and the needs of the majority of farmers who still require an economic inseminator service. It is a question of finding a balance between freedom and the whole system that we have grown up with—a service that is giving an economic service to farmers, many of whom are small farmers. That is the problem to which we should be applying ourselves. On balance, I say that these regulations represent a fair compromise between the two.
We must bear in mind the economic case. At present, throughout the country, in the remoter areas as well as in the heavily populated ones, farmers have a first-class service of the highest quality, with semen from the best bulls. I do not want that to be destroyed, and those who talk glibly about freedom should think carefully before they destroy a system that has been so good and has seen such great achievements in the past, built up by the Milk Marketing Board.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Why is it that the Friesian herd in this country, compared with the Friesian herds in Holland,


Canada and other countries where there are no controls, is dropping behind? The improvement has been much greater where there is no control.

Mr. Mills: I do not accept that.
The other problem is that of monopoly. I can understand people being concerned about the monopoly situation, but we must be consistent. In the collection and sale of milk we are prepared to accept a monopoly situation that is of great benefit to the consumer and the producer. I believe that in view of the very real problem of disease we should accept the monopoly position of the Milk Marketing Board. In farming, we have a monopoly situation in the veterinary service. We cannot buy penicillin or terramycin freely; we have to accept a monopoly situation. What about the sale of sugar beet? That is a monopoly situation. A similar situation exists in respect of the inspection of meat and with the Wool Board. All these are for the benefit of the farming community as a whole, and I do not think that we shall be inconsistent.
As for the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) and his Liberal attitude, I assure him that many small farmers in North and West Devon will be interested to hear about the Liberal position. It will be a great help in the extension of the Liberal cause.
The Milk Marketing Board is entirely controlled by farmers. It is composed of democratically-elected farmers. The regional committees set up with democratically-elected people. The way in which the Board is run is decided by the farmers. That is what they want. I can understand those who are keen to see the monopoly broken, but we must accept the position and realise what benefits have accrued.
Lastly, there is the problem of disease. I fear very much that if we had "cowboy" operators—and that is possible—anybody who was willing to take short cuts and to save money in this business might be tempted to do so. The dangers of VD in our cattle are very great. When I think of the record that we have had for many years—a record of disease-free herds—I for one as a farmer do not want to see the problem of VD in cattle grow and grow. I suggest that those who want

complete freedom in this matter should carefully consider the problem of disease, and its possible effects. That possibility cannot be dismissed.
I believe that these matters should be examined frequently because the situation does not stand still. Therefore, I hope that we can have assurance that the Minister will re-examine the matter. My right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) was right to raise this important matter, and I agree that its importance should be stressed.

12.50 a.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: This has been a most unhappy affair and has arisen because of a lamentable failure of public relations on the part of the Ministry. I hope that in his reply the Minister will make amends by explaining that the regulations are not quite as restrictive as some hon. Members have come to believe.
The point has already been well made that we have had a successful AI system basically through the Milk Marketing Board, and it is a system that is available in remote areas. I have made use of the system, as have many of my farming friends on their farms, and it has undoubtedly been successful.
I hope that the service will continue wherever possible in Scotland and, where the MMB cannot compete effectively, through the DIY AI service, which I hope will be given a special licence to operate. On the one hand we have the Milk Marketing Board's excellent service, and on the other hand there are the activities of the independent associations who have made their points most effectively in letters to hon. Members. We must try to reach a balanced judgment, and the NFU in Scotland believes that on the whole it is better to support the regulations.

12.52 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): I am glad that the House has this opportunity to debate the Artificial Insemination of Cattle Regulations. There has been a certain amount of misunderstanding about the content and scope of these regulations. It is fair to say that throughout the industry much of that misunderstanding has been corrected, but, regretfully, some


of it still exists among some hon. Members, and I shall seek to correct some of it.
I do not need to remind the House of the importance of artificial insemination to the livestock industry, especially to our dairy herds. About two-thirds of all inseminations in Britain are now carried out by AI. Equally, it is generally agreed that the control of AI, from both the genetic and the animal disease standpoint, has been necessary and continues to be so. Since AI first became a commercial proposition in the 1940s, we have seen it develop into the sophisticated techniques that now exist. The 1957 regulations, which have been revoked by these regulations, were made at the time when the present practice of using deep-frozen semen was in its infancy. Quite apart from the issue of DIY AI, new regulations were needed to reflect the technical progress made in the last 20 years.
Because time is limited in this debate, I shall address myself to three main points mentioned by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), who spoke on behalf of the official Opposition, and the points raised by the National Cattle Breeders Association and the NFU of England and Wales. First, I wish to deal with the subject of the genetic and veterinary quality controls applied to the use of bulls in AI. I must reiterate that the regulations will not alter these quality controls.
As the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) indicated, there was considerable misunderstanding at the outset—but that was not because of anything that I said in my answer in the House on 27th July. If the hon. Member reads Hansard of that day, he will find that I made clear that DIY AI had a real role to play, and I explained that role.
In response to the views expressed by the National Cattle Breeders Association, I said that we proposed to institute a comprehensive review of these standards in consultation with all the interested organisations. This review has already begun and the team of officials of my Department and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, under the chairmanship of the Director-General of ADAS, has already had discussions with some interested organisations. This round of discussions is likely

to be substantially completed by the end of the month, but it is quite likely that there will have to be further discussions before the results of the reviews can be put to Ministers, and we must think in terms of the results of the review being announced early in the new year rather than before Christmas.
This is a difficult and complicated subject, and I am sure that no one would wish us to reach over-hasty conclusions. The selection of bulls for use in AI, whether at Government level, breeder organisation level or the level of the individual farmer, is a matter of great significance for the future of the British livestock industry. The Government's aim, therefore, must be to ensure as far as possible that it makes the best contribution to the overall process of making, selection as efficient as possible.
I recognise that there is a balance to be drawn between the testing of as many bulls as possible and the fact that the resources available for progeny testing are limited. We must strike a balance between the maximum evaluation of new bulls on recorded females and at the same time ensure that we are not reducing the efficiency of the progeny-testing schemes and, furthermore, not reducing the average performance level of bulls used extensively through the whole industry and thus reducing the rate of progress. I assure the House that we are taking serious account of the views of individual breeders, of societies and of the National Cattle Breeders Association.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Surely the 1957 regulations could equally have allowed increased progeny testing. There is no improvement in these regulations.

Mr. Strang: The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to appreciate that under existing regulations private DIY AI breeders are not able to use semen from bulls—some are very good bulls—held at AI centres. That, among other things, is what we are talking about when we refer to the loophole. Clearly, those who drafted the 1957 regulations had not anticipated DIY AI, or they would not have framed them in such a way.
This is a new restriction, ensuring that the semen must be distributed in future through a national network and not just through the Milk Marketing Boards. However, we are providing some additional freedom to DIY AI. Farmers will


be able to use the best and privately-owned bulls at the AI centres.
I want to refer to the number of straws that an individual farmer can hold in his farm storage unit. It must be accepted that by permitting the storage of semen on individual farms we are running a risk which is effectively absent with the inseminator service. This risk arises out of the possibility that that some of the semen may be passed on to other farmers for use on their cows. That in itself could, in certain circumstances, result in some spread of disease, and that hazard would be magnified if no records, or inadequate records, were kept of the use of this semen.
In view of these considerations, it has seemed to the Government that we should seek to minimise the risk by ensuring that farmers who have their own flasks are not holding more semen in them than they require for the proper running of their own business.
The question has been, where should we fix the limit? In England and Wales the regulations provide for the limit to be the equivalent of twice the number of breeding cows and heifers on the farm. In Scotland, where the general picture is perhaps of more difficult geographical conditions and rather more remote farms, the limit is fixed at three times the number of breeding cows and heifers. It has been strongly represented to me—by the National Farmers Union, the National Cattle Breeders Association and by the right hon. Member for Yeovil—that the limit for England and Wales should be raised to three times the number of breeding cows and heifers, as it is in Scotland.
I have accordingly consulted the other interested organisations about this proposal. The majority view favours an increase to three times the number of cows and heifers, and after considering the matter I have decided it would be right to amend the regulations in this sense. In reaching this decision I am aware that two of the organisations consulted, the Associated AI Centres and the British Veterinary Association, are not in favour of this change and consider that the regulations should not be altered on this point. I believe, however, that an increase to three times would not create an unacceptable risk of abuse and is

justified in the light of the majority opinion expressed.
I turn to the third point concerning the review of the regulations. We spend a great deal of time endeavouring to get the balance right on these regulations, but I am glad to give the right hon. Member for Yeovil the assurance that we shall have a look at these regulations and watch them closely, including how they cope with the situation. Certainly we do not claim infallibility, and we shall be prepared to bring forward amendments, in consultation with the existing organisations, to seek to correct difficulties which come to light as all concerned get practical experience of the regulations as they work. The change we have made tonight is an indication of this flexibility.
Let me come to the heart of the matter. I welcome the contribution by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), because at least he stated the position clearly. He is against the milk boards—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, the debate stood adjourned.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION

Motion made,
That the Standing Order of 22nd November 1974 relating to the nomination of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration be amended, by leaving out Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke and inserting Mr. Ian Gow.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Hon. Members: Object.

NON-CONTRIBUTORY INVALIDITY PENSION SCHEME

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

1.2 a.m.

Mr. Michael Mates: I am glad to have the opportunity at this late hour to raise on the Adjournment a matter which has led to items appearing in the Press recently which have caused a great deal of national interest. It is a good thing that we should have a chance of airing the matter in the House.
Before I come to my criticisms of the way in which the scheme for invalidity benefit for disabled housewives is


being operated, I wish to say how much I approve of the way in which it has been introduced.
I congratulate the Minister on bringing a whole new benefit to an area where there was none before. He has broken new ground and has given money to people who need it more badly than almost anyone else. I am referring to disabled housewives who have never been able to work, have never been able to contribute to a pension and have even been unable to cope with the day-to-day work in their homes.
Having said that, it is amazing how, the moment one of these new benefits is introduced, it seems that a vast army of bureaucrats begins to decide who cannot benefit. It is amazing how the rules can be made to exclude as many as possible. That in itself is not a crime, because we all have a responsibility to be careful about what is done with public money, but when introducing benefits for the disabled I believe that the other criterion should apply. Surely bureaucracy should try to include as many as possible.
A constituent of mine, a Mrs. Palliser, found that she was in every way qualified to receive the benefit. She is in an advanced state of multiple sclerosis and is confined to her house. The only way that she can get out is in her wheelchair and invalid car. But for once she was given a break from the routine. She was given the holiday of a lifetime by her son. She saw her family in Canada for the first and doubtless the only time in her life. When she returned, she found that because she had been absent from the United Kingdom on holiday for two weeks she did not meet the residence qualification that would allow her to draw the benefit. As matters stand, she will suffer to the extent of about £80 or £90 because she does not qualify to draw the benefit until January or February next year.
I have raised only one case, but enough publicity has been given to the matter to cause a number of other cases to come to the fore. Another lady in my constituency has applied for the allowance. She has been disabled since the onset of polio 25 years ago. She can walk only with difficulty. She can do so only with sticks. She spent a week in Bel

gium in August. She took her wheelchair. She does not qualify.
Another lady has written to me from Belfast. She went to Lourdes to take a faith cure on the instruction of her doctor. She was out of the country for 14 days in July. She does not qualify. It has been reported to me that there are about 60 other cases.
When I wrote to the Department of Health and Social Security at Portsmouth I could not believe that the regulation was being correctly applied. The reply from Portsmouth was to the effect that it was being correctly applied and that the office had received approximately 60 claims that appeared to be due for disallowance. To be fair to the Portsmouth office, those claims have not yet been disallowed. The lady in Northern Ireland however, has had information disallowing, the allowance.
Something must be done about this. I appreciate that anomalies will arise on the introduction of a new allowance, but the allowance in question is only an extension of the non-contributory invalidity pension, which was started some time ago and was payable to all except disabled housewives.
It is all wrong, but leaflet NI214 of June 1977 is all too clear. It states that the person concerned must have been
in the United Kingdom … or the Isle of Man for the whole of the 28 weeks' qualifying period: periods of incapacity abroad do not count.
That is the ground on which the allowance is being disallowed.
In the non-contributory invalidity pension leaflet of June 1975, leaflet NI210, the situation appears to be quite different. Under the title "If you go abroad", the leaflet states:
Generally you will be disqualified from receiving NCIP for any period of absence from the United Kingdom. In certain circumstances, however, it may be possible for you to continue to receive the benefit during a temporary overseas visit.
Why is there one rule for the NCIP and another for the housewife's NCIP? All that we have is an extension of the benefit that is payable to disabled housewives. The difference seems to be totally illogical, and I ask the Minister to provide an explanation.
I know that there is a case on this issue before the courts. That has happened because the national insurance


commissioner has decided that the withholding of payment in a particular case was wrong. Why has the Department not accepted this?
In that case an independent commissioner, who has examined the matter, has come to the conclusion that although the officer concerned thought that he was acting within the regulations, in fact he was not. The commissioner has ordered that a payment which has been denied to a person who would have been in receipt of the non-contributory invalidity pension shall be paid. The Department, for reasons that I just do not understand, is appealing against this decision. At the root of this must be very heartless thinking. Surely the Department could with the best grace in the world, accept the decision of the independent commissioner and pay the allowance.
We are not talking about large sums. What we are talking about is bringing forward a date when people who are otherwise totally qualified to receive this benefit can do so but for the fact that they have spent a very short period abroad.
Once again, I do not want to oversimplify the matter. It must be complex. There must be repercussions of these decisions. However, it surely goes without saying that the first thing we need to provide, once a decision has been taken to give benefit, particularly to disabled people, is certainty to those concerned that they will get the benefit.
In this case the benefit should have been paid from a date last week—17th November, I believe. A large number of disabled housewives do not know whether they are to receive the benefit and, if they are to receive it, when they will get it. This uncertainty must be removed. Although this may be a complicated matter, although the Minister no doubt needs to look into the matter, and assuming that the legal challenge to which I have referred must proceed, in the meantime this very small number of disabled housewives should be told that they can receive the benefit.
The Minister may want to attach strings. He may want to say "without prejudice to the fact that I may have to withdraw part or all of the money afterwards."However, these people must not

be left in this state—that is, not in receipt of the benefit to which they were told they would be entitled—and they must not be left in a state of uncertainty as to whether and when this benefit can be made available to them.
If the Minister is able to give me this assurance tonight I shall be very happy, as will be my constituent, and the Minister will be showing a positive attitude which officials, perhaps because of the constraints under which they must operate, have not been able to show.
Without wishing to implicate anybody, I wish to say that when I went to my local social security office to look into this question I went convinced that my constituent had the matter wrong. I was told that my constituent had the matter right. I have to say that all those who were involved in disallowing Mrs. Palliser's disability pension found the whole matter totally distasteful to them. They did not want to have to disallow the payment. They thought that it was quite contrary to the spirit in which the Act was drafted.
As it must be clear to us all that that was not intended, when we are trying to put in qualifications and caveats before we pay out public money, let us remember that it was never intended that a lady who went for a short, much-needed holiday abroad to get away from a very difficult home life should then be deprived of a benefit as a result. As this cannot have been in the minds of those who drafted the Social Security Act and the regulations concerned, surely the Minister has not only the power but the duty to see that it is put right quickly.

1.14 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) for providing this opportunity for the House to discuss our new non-contributory invalidity pension for married women, which is receivable for the first time this week.
There are inevitably, as with all new benefits, some points of criticism, but I believe that the House as a whole will accept that the introduction of this new benefit represents a further important step forward in helping severely disabled people. I am very grateful to the hon.


Member for his generous comments in welcoming the new benefit.
New benefits bring new problems. They sometimes cause not only delight but also disappointment. As the hon. Member noted, they must of necessity exclude people as well as include people. This is one of the penalties of breaking new ground and introducing new benefits. But the difficulties we meet at the margin of entitlement should not discourage us from trying to provide new help for those in special need.
I have here a letter which may be of special interest to the House. It is from a very severely disabled lady, Ann Armstrong, who is known to many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House as an editor ofResponaut. Ann says in her letter to me:
It is over 15 years since I first wrote on the 14th March 1962 iN The Guardian, 'Surely if we are to be kept alive through the dangerous period of having polio, then we must be eligible for a disability pension from the State to enable us to lead as near a normal life as possible.' Thanks to the HNCIP, from now on my life should be much nearer normal and I am most grateful to all concerned.
That is a very encouraging message. Ann is among the 46,000 claimants so far. Her letter should remind us that the new benefit has brought a great deal of delight as well as some disappointment.
The hon. Member raised in particular the case of his constituent Mrs Palliser, who has made a claim for the new benefit. I very much appreciate the hon. Member's concern about this case, and I am glad to say at the very outset that I will both urgently and sympathetically review the relevant provision as it relates to such cases as that of Mrs. Palliser so as to try to ensure that the specific difficulties which have been identified do not arise again.
Meanwhile, I shall be as helpful and constructive as I can in explaining to the House the regulations as they affect such cases as that of Mrs. Palliser. In so doing, I must very strongly emphasise that this is not a matter of red tape, as was suggested by one local newspaper last Friday. The issue is a complex one, involving both a legal problem and an issue of principle.
I think that it might be of help to hon. Members if I start by briefly reminding

the House of the qualifying conditions for the benefit concerned. In order to qualify for the new benefit, a married woman must be of working age and must have been incapable both of her normal house hold duties and of paid work for a continuous period of 28 weeks. It is this latter condition, where the period of 28 weeks includes an absence abroad, which is the concern of the hon. Member. I must, therefore, explain the legal problem relating to this particular qualifying condition.
Mrs. Palliser's case and some other cases are affected by Regulation 4(2) of the Social Security (Non-Contributory Invalidity Pension) Regulations 1975. This regulation affects both men and single women who have claimed NCIP as well as those who have claimed its extension to married women. The effect of the regulation is that, in deciding whether a person has been incapable of work for 28 consecutive weeks, any day on which the person was absent from the United Kingdom breaks that continuous period.
In a similar case to Mrs. Palliser's, the national insurance commissioner has held that Regulation 4(2) isultra vires. The insurance officer concerned—acting as a completely independent authority—sought legal advice in that case. I understand that the advice given to him was that the commissioner's decision was wrong in law.
In order to put the matter beyond doubt, leave to apply for an order of certiorari has been granted to the insurance officer by the High Court. I understand that the matter is likely to be considered by the court sometime in January. To that extent the matter is sub judice. This being so, I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate that until insurance officers are clear as to the interpretation of the law it is impossible for them to decide claims for periods when persons have been absent from the United Kingdom during the qualifying period.
I must stress again to the House that insurance officers are independent adjudicating authorities, and neither the Secretary of State nor I can intervene in their decisions. It is, however, my clear understanding that, in cases such as that of Mrs. Palliser, an insurance officer is likely to be able to make an award, providing her with this new maintenance


benefit in her own right 28 weeks after the return of the claimant to the United Kingdom, if the qualifying conditions are satisfied during that period.
I repeat that it is an insurance officer who is seeking the order of certiorari from the courts. Again, it is an insurance officer who will decide whether any particular person, including Mrs. Palliser, is entitled to this new benefit. No Minister has any power to intervene in the actions of an insurance officer.
The hon. Gentleman asked me why my Department had not accepted the ruling of an independent commissioner. It is the insurance officer who has not accepted the ruling. It is the insurance officer who is seeking the order of certiorari from the courts.

Mr. Mates: Is this without the advice or consent of the Minister's Department?

Mr. Morris: Under the law the insurance officer is an independent adjudicating officer. He has the power to appeal. He is exercising his power in the case to which I referred.

Mr. Mates: Yes, but the Minister has not answered my question. Has the insurance officer taken this action with or without the advice and consent of the Department?

Mr. Morris: No Minister has any power to intervene in the actions of an insurance officer. The reply, therefore, is that we have no power to stop the insurance officer taking this course. If the hon. Gentleman would like to ask me any further question, I shall endeavour to deal with it.

Mr. Mates: Is the insurance officer doing this against or with the wishes of the Minister? An insurance officer who is a member of the Minister's Department may say that the commissioner has decided against him and that he is minded to appeal or otherwise. The Minister has a battery of legal advice available to him.

Mr. Morris: This is a very important point. I have emphasised on more than one occasion in my speech that the insurance officer is an independent adjudicating authority. I have said again that no Minister has any power to intervene in the actions of an insurance officer. It is not, therefore, for us to take the

kind of action suggested in the question put to me by the hon. Gentleman. He asked why my Department had not accepted the ruling of an independent commissioner. I have explained the situation as fully as I possibly can. As I have said, it will be the insurance officer who will decide whether any particular person, including Mrs. Palliser, is entitled to this new benefit.
I promised earlier to deal also with the issue of principle involved in this qualifying condition, and I turn to that now. As the House knows, before anyone can be entitled to contributory invalidity benefit he must have paid the appropriate contributions and previously have been entitled to sickness benefit for 28 weeks. That "buys him in", as it were. For non-contributory invalidity pension, which is financed from general taxation rather than contributions, the parallel tests are residence and presence in the United Kingdom—instead of actual contributions paid—and continuous incapacity of 28 weeks' duration. Many would argue that it would be entirely unacceptable to have easier rules for the non-contributory invalidity pension than for the contributory invalidity benefit.
The House will hardly need reminding that NCIP for married women is, of course, an extension of the ordinary non-contributory invalidity pension, which, in turn is the counterpart of the contributory invalidity benefit. This is one difficulty in making—as the hon. Member clearly wants us to make—a special case of NCIP for married women and allowing a different qualifying period to be served from that which recipients of the other benefits have to serve.

Mr. Mates: Perhaps I might remind the hon. Gentleman of my earlier question. Why are the two pamphlets different? This is roughtly the same pension. One pamphlet contains one set of rules, and the other contains different rules. It is easier for the housewife who is not disabled, because she is not subject to the business of the short absence abroad.

Mr. Morris: I have to proceed as quickly as I can because there are other matters with which I want to deal, but on the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman I think that the difference is more apparent than real. The point is that once


a benefit has been obtained there is the possibility of discretion about continuing the payment if the beneficiary is abroad for a period of time. In Mrs. Palliser's case—and in others, too—we are talking about qualifying for the first time. This is a complicated matter, and I am prepared to contact the hon. Gentleman further on this aspect of it.
To have no restrictions as to absence abroad during the 28-week period would lay us open to the further charge that we are opening the door to fraud and abuse. In many countries acceptable evidence of incapacity may be obtainable, but we would have to concede that in other countries, with different social systems from our own, very little weight could properly be given to some of the medical evidence produced. I entirely appreciate the importance of striking the right balance between humanity and common sense in dealing with cases of this kind, but until we have a ruling from the courts on the effect of the law as it stands at present it would be imprudent to go further than that at this stage. As I have already assured the House, when the law is clearer I shall both urgently and sympathetically review the relevant provisions to try to ensure that the specific difficulties which have been identified do not arise again. I shall do that with all that the hon. Gentleman has said very much in mind.
There is still need, however, for a further cautionary note. All of us must accept that any new scheme on this scale—and it will cover tens of thousands of new beneficiaries—must operate within broad general rules. This is necessary not only so that the public can understand the scheme but because a scheme that is too complicated has less chance of being properly operated by the often very hard-pressed staff in our social security offices. I noted with pleasure the tribute that the hon. Gentleman paid to those who work in the Portsmouth office. As I said at the outset, it must also be accepted that, when any new benefit is introduced, the clearly defined qualifying conditions which must be drawn inevitably exclude some people who feel that they have a valid entitlement but do not satisfy the qualifying conditions.
Having explained to the House as fully as I can the general problem, I should

like to return to the case that prompted this debate. Naturally, I have much sympathy with Mrs. Palliser's claim. I understand that she suffers from multiple sclerosis and made a claim for the new benefit in September of this year. I understand further that Mrs. Palliser was in Canada during part of the 28-week run-up period before NCIP for married women was introduced on 17th November.
The hon. Member for Petersfield has been advised that no decision can be made on Mrs. Palliser's case from 17th November 1977 to 9th January 1978, when the 28-week qualifying period will have been completed. Thereafter, Mrs. Palliser is likely to be entitled to the benefit from 10th January 1978. As to the intervening period, the decision of the insurance officer must, of course, await the outcome of the certiorari application.
I should like now to set the introduction of the non-contributory invalidity pension for married women in the context of all the improvements we have made in social security provision for disabled people and their families.
In September 1974, we presented our report to this House on our review of social security provision for chronically sick and disabled people. It was published as House of Commons Paper 276. The report argued that there were substantial gaps in the social security provision for disabled people but that the situation could not be wholly remedied by any single and immediate set of measures. It also recognised that it takes time to identify the groups who should qualify for new benefits and that it was important to set out priorities against the background of the very difficult economic situation we faced.
One of the shortcomings highlighted in the report was the position of those who, through no fault of their own, had not paid the necessary national insurance contributions to qualify them for sickness benefit and thus could not qualify for contributory invalidity benefit. We decided that this had to be remedied.
In setting out our immediate proposals for social security changes, we were guided by the following principles:
First, better provision for the severely disabled must come before further provision for the less severely disabled.


Second, benefits for those who cannot work should take priority over further provision for those who can, as the loss of the ability to earn is stark, overwhelming and readily identifiable.
Third, those of working age who would be at work but for long-standing incapacity should have the right to a benefit without test of means.
Fourth, those who relieve the social services and sacrifice work opportunities to look after people at home who are severely disabled should be provided with a benefit as of right.
Those four principles had then to be translated into specific benefits. The first such benefit, which we introduced in November 1975, was the non-contributory invalidity pension for men and single women who were incapable of work. This was in fact the non-contributory counter

part, although of different amount, of the contributory invalidity benefit. In 1976, we introduced the invalid care allowance for those who were regularly and substantially engaged, for at least 35 hours a week, in providing care for a severely disabled relative receiving attendance allowance. This year, we completed the concrete proposals—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes to Two o'clock.